Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BARNSLEY CORPORATION BILL

HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL

SWINDON CORPORATION BILL

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

RHODESIA RAILWAYS LIMITED (PENSION SCHEMES AND CONTRACTS) BILL [Lords]

Resolved:
That in the case of the Rhodesia Railways Limited (Pension Schemes and Contracts) Bill [Lords] Standing Order 199 (Notice of Committee) be suspended and that the Committee of Selection have leave to appoint the Committee on the Bill to sit and proceed forthwith.—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS

Address for
Return of experiments performed under the Act, 39 and 40 Vic., c. 77, during 1948, with statistics of experiments performed under the Act during 1939–48 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 143, of Session 1938–39)."—[Mr. Younger.]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Cake (Postal Packets)

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Minister of Food on what conditions pieces of wedding or birthday cake can be sent out of the country.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): Wedding or birthday cake can be sent out of the country either in gift food parcels, when not more than 2 lb. may be

sent, and if the cake is not home-made an equal quantity of rationed food must be included; or by letter post, where the packet must not weigh more than 6 oz. gross and must comply with the postal regulations of the country to which it is addressed.

Brigadier Rayner: Is it not rather absurd that people should not be able to send birthday or wedding cake in 2 oz. pieces out of the country without all that extra food; cannot the Minister make it easier to send the usual little packets which people like to send?

Mr. Strachey: The hon. and gallant Member must have misheard me. I said 2 lb., not 2 oz.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Is this system merely to prevent people abroad from knowing that we still have the courage to get married in this country, or what?

Mr. Strachey: These are the postal regulations which cover parcel post and letter post respectively.

Brigadier Rayner: Will the Minister discuss the matter with his right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General to see whether it is not possible to send 2 oz. packets of birthday or wedding cake, as they used to be sent before the war?

Mr. Strachey: By letter post it is possible to send up to 6 oz. and by parcel post up to 2 lb.

Agricultural Rations

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Minister of Food why two forms for agricultural rations have to be filled in if hoeing and singling are being undertaken at the same time.

Mr. Strachey: Only one form need be filled in if hoeing and singling are being undertaken at the same time. This has been made clear to the local food offices in a recent circular.

Beekeeping (Sugar)

Mr. Martin Lindsay: asked the Minister of Food whether there is to be any change in the sugar allowance for beekeepers.

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir.

Poultry Prices

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Minister of Food whether he will now take steps, in view of the recently changed market situation, to decontrol all poultry.

Mr. Strachey: I have given careful consideration to the decontrol of poultry prices, in the light of current and prospective supplies and of the general economic situation of the country, and I am not convinced that there is enough poultry for sales to be made freely within the present maximum prices. In the circumstances, I am not prepared to take the risk of decontrol, and therefore both poultry and rabbits will remain subject to price control this year.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: In view of the fact that the number of poultry in the country is growing month by month, can the Minister give us an indication as to when he may be able to meet the point I make in my Question?

Mr. Strachey: There is, of course, nothing to prevent the prices of poultry and rabbits from falling below the maximum price, and I very much hope that they will do so.

Mr. Turton: Is this not contrary to the advice of the Bodinnar Committee, which was set up to examine this very problem?

Mr. Strachey: That Committee and many others have come to the conclusion that we should get rid of this control at the earliest possible time, and I certainly share that view; but, for the reasons I have given, I do not think that the risk of higher prices can be faced at the present time.

Sir David Robertson: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that practically no poultry goes through Smithfield or the other great markets in this country, or ever finds its way into the shops in my constituency and in others; but that it goes into a black market which the Minister seems incapable of controlling?

Mr. Strachey: I am glad to say that Smithfield and the other big markets are now handling supplies of poultry.

Sweets

Mr. William Wells: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that many confectioners are withholding sweets from the public now in order to make large sales during the first period in respect of which rationing will apply, in the hope that they will thereby become entitled to large supplies in the second rationing period; and what steps he is taking to prevent such action from being effectual.

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Food what steps he is taking to secure that sweets will be available to the public during the holiday period, and that manufacturers and shopkeepers do not hoard sweets in anticipation of the reimposition of sweets rationing.

Mr. Strachey: I know that some confectioners are using part of their current supplies to rebuild their working stocks which have been reduced to a very low level. This is essential to help the reintroduction of rationing. Excessive stock-piling would involve retailers in an immediate financial loss from reduced turnover and would, at the same time, cause great dissatisfaction to their customers, so it would not be in their interests to do this.

Mr. Wells: Will the allocation in the first rationing period be based on present sales, or on sales over a longer period?

Mr. Strachey: It is somewhat complicated, but broadly it will be on the basis of sales before the lapse of the rationing.

Mr. Turton: While I gave permission for my Question to be answered at the same time as Question No. 5, the Minister has not given me any reply. Will he say what steps he is taking to secure that sweets will be available to the public during the holiday period?

Mr. Strachey: Until rationing is reintroduced on 14th August it is impossible for the Ministry to ensure a supply of sweets to any given individual.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does the former answer mean that the amount of sweets allocated to small retailers will be decided not by the manufacturers but on the basis of the points held when rationing ceased?

Mr. Strachey: After rationing is reintroduced?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Yes.

Mr. Strachey: Broadly that is the case.

Brigadier Head: Is the Minister aware that there are many anomalies meantime in the way the points will be allocated over the next rationing period? Will he look into these anomalies if I let him know, because there are many complaints?

Mr. Strachey: Certainly, but reintroducing rationing is a very complex business.

White Fish (Prices)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Minister of Food what is the percentage of maximum control price realised by the sale of white fish landed at British ports in the month of June.

Mr. Strachey: The information for which the hon. Member asks will take some time to prepare, and I will write to him as soon as possible.

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Food if he has considered the practicability of relating the retail price of white fish to the first price to stimulate demand when landings are excessive; and what steps he proposes to take.

Mr. Strachey: If the fall in prices at the ports were general and sustained we could adjust the maximum retail prices; but my Department has never been able to find a practicable way of ensuring that occasional local reductions in prices are passed on to the consumer.

Mr. Shepherd: If it is not practicable to relate the landing price to the selling price, why is it that the fishermen have to stand the loss through the landing price dropping so low? Cannot they have a standard minimum to ensure that they get a good catch?

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Minister aware that during the last six weeks thousands of tons of fresh fish have been sold as manure and yet the prices in the shops have remained the same? Why should the fishermen receive such a poor return when the middleman is getting all the profits?

Mr. Strachey: I am far from suggesting that the distribution of fish is perfect, but there is a price maximum fixed by the

Ministry and there is nothing to prevent prices to the householder from dropping below that maximum.

Mr. Shepherd: If the prices cannot be lowered, why cannot the existing minimum to the fishermen be increased instead of allowing the middleman to earn so much money?

Mr. Strachey: I could not agree that the margin between the two is excessive today.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is not the middleman's profit part of the Conservative policy?

Pig Sale (Payment Claim)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that on 16th May an old age pensioner, a member of the Balsall Common Pigkeepers' Club, sold to his Department a pig weighing over 11 score, but was only paid for 6 score 19 lb.; that the auctioneers in charge of the Hampton-in-Arden Collecting Centre agreed that this was a mistake and referred the claim to the area livestock officer; and why no redress was offered for over two months.

Mr. Strachey: An additional payment was made on 20th July on the basis that this pig weighed over 11 score deadweight. I am making further inquiries on the reasons for the error in the identification of this pig and also for the regrettable delay in settling the claim for payment.

Sir J. Mellor: Is not the Minister aware that I gave notice of this Question some days ago, but yet he has not been able to give information about the unconscionable time which has elapsed?

Mr. Strachey: We have corrected the matter, but unfortunately I cannot tell the hon. Member whose responsibility it was that it took such a long time to correct the error. Perhaps I can write to him.

Food Office, West Lothian

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the unsatisfactory conditions for public and staff which prevail at the County of West Lothian food office at Bathgate; and, in view of the fact that these conditions will not be remedied before July, 1950, whether he


will take immediate steps to improve the position, more especially to protect callers at the office from having to queue outside the office in inclement weather.

Mr. Strachey: I am aware of the unsatisfactory accommodation at the Bathgate food office. I have approached the Ministry of Works on the provision of protection for callers until the new food office is ready for use.

Mr. Mathers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this office brings his own Department into disrepute? Will he not help, through his right hon. Friend the Minister of Works, to expedite the new office and so remove these bad conditions?

Mr. Strachey: We shall do our best, but there is a limit to what I can ask my right hon. Friend to do in this respect. As the new office will be ready next summer we are not justified in spending too much on the old office.

Mr. Mathers: Is my right hon. Friend correct in saying that the new office will be ready for next summer?

Mr. Strachey: I was given the date of July.

Seed Potatoes (Charges)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the 40s. per ton surcharge on Royal Kidney seed potatoes exported from the Wisbech area to Spain is resulting in Spanish buyers seeking their seed potatoes from France, Eire, Holland and Denmark; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Strachey: Consultation on the question of retaining the Seed Potatoes (Charges) Order in the coming season are still taking place, and when a decision is reached I will write to the hon. and gallant Member.

Major Legge-Bourke: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recall that I raised this matter with him on 14th February, when he said he would be glad to discuss it with the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Can he say why the delay has been so long, and what prospects there are of a successful outcome of the deliberations?

Mr. Strachey: These discussions are going on. As the hon. and gallant Mem-

ber realises, there is a case for this order which merely takes back the subsidy payment on acreages which otherwise could be held to constitute a subsidy on exports.

Major Legge-Bourke: Surely it would not be in the interests of this country to allow the growers or the merchants to lose this market with Spain, which was quite a valuable one before the war?

Mr. Strachey: I think there is force in the hon. and gallant Member's contention.

Whale Meat

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Minister of Food what experiments he has made to discover the comparative values, respectively, as a delicacy and nutritionally of the various parts of the whale suitable for human consumption; and what conclusions he has reached.

Mr. Strachey: Both the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and my Department have been interested for some time in developing the potentially large supplies of meat from whales caught by the whaling expeditions. In the past three seasons Government research workers have accompanied expeditions to the Antarctic. Many palatability tests have been made both in the laboratories of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and in the experimental kitchens of my Department. The results indicate that whale meat frozen or processed soon after the whale is killed can be of excellent quality. In the major nutrients and vitamins whale meat is approximately equivalent to beef.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of the whale goes to manure?

Mr. Strachey: I could not say without notice.

Mr. Beswick: Can my right hon. Friend say whether either the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research or his own Department have been able to discover from which part of the mammal a steak is taken?

Mr. David Renton: Who conducts these palatability tests, and do they have a "whale of a time?"

Mr. Strachey: I have conducted one myself with considerable pleasure.

Brigadier Head: How about a "Minister for Whales?"

Flour (Extraction Rate)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether he will now consider changing the policy of milling flour at 85 per cent. extraction, and substituting a 72 per cent. extraction so as to enable a greater quantity of feedingstuffs to be available to the pig and poultry producers throughout the country.

Mr. Strachey: I am afraid I cannot add to the answer I gave the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) on 4th May.

Mr. De la Bère: Does not the Minister realise how absolutely urgent and vital it is to increase livestock throughout the country, including pigs and poultry? Why not abandon the idea of importing the finished article and import wheat to prevent the reduction in feedingstuffs for animals? Surely the Government must have some sense of awareness. The situation is absolutely critical and yet there is a broad grin on the faces of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench?

Mr. Strachey: I am well aware of the importance of importing feedstuffs, but it is not by any means certain that it is better to import them in the form of wheat and for us to process that wheat, than to import increased barley, oats and other grains.

Home-Killed Meat (Distribution)

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: asked the Minister of Food (1) what proportion of home-killed meat was allocated to the Lleyn area of Caernarvonshire during the week commencing 10th July; and if he will give comparable figures for Liverpool;
(2) on what basis home-killed meat is allocated to producing areas; and how the percentage so allocated compares with that for non-producing areas.

Mr. Strachey: Livestock is allocated so as to give, as nearly as possible, an equal

distribution of home-killed meat throughout the country, with due regard to the distances over which Livestock can be humanely transported, and to economy in transport. Comparisons between producing and non-producing areas vary in different parts of the country, at different times of the year, and to some extent from week to week. The proportions respectively to the Lleyn area and Liverpool in the week commencing 10th July were approximately 59 per cent. and 69 per cent. In the four weeks of June they were 31 per cent. and 30 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Roberts: Could my right hon. Friend say whether due regard is paid to the fact that there is a lack of refrigerators in rural producing areas, and whether this is borne in mind when allocations of home-produced and foreign imported meat are made?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, but refrigerating plant may be necessary in butchers' shops for the retention of either kind of meat.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that prime Scottish beef is sent to England and Wales, while Scottish people have to make do with poor quality imported beef? Cannot we get better quality beef in Scotland? I would not know a steak if I saw one.

Extra Rations (Application)

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Food why his Department refused to grant extra rations for the purpose of the tea provided at Salton, near Pickering, on 20th July to the touring Australian farmers.

Mr. Strachey: I am inquiring into the circumstances and will write to the hon. Member very shortly, but on the facts available I regret that a special allocation was refused in this case.

Mr. Turton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Department refused this request and that, in consequence, 50 Australian farmers could not be properly and hospitably entertained?

Mr. Strachey: Although the refusal was in accordance with the strict letter of the regulations, I think it was a mistake.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Consultative Committees

Mr. A. Edward Davies: asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made in setting up consultative transport committees as provided for under Section 6 of the Transport Act, 1947; and how many of them are functioning.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): The Central Transport Consultative Committee has been working for six months. I have now appointed the Committees for Scotland and Wales and, with permission, I will circulate in HANSARD a list of the members of these two Committees. With regard to the London committee, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) on 4th July. Area committees will be appointed subsequent to the coming into effect of the area road passenger transport schemes.

Following is the list:

TRANSPORT USERS CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE FOR SCOTLAND

Mr. Neil S. Beaton, J.P. (Chairman); Mr. A. R. Semple; The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Elgin and Kincardine, K.T., C.M.G., LL.D., T.D.; Mr. W. Mackenzie; Mr. C. M. Anderson; Mr. R. H. Murdoch; Mr. P. C. Somerville; Mr. J. Brannigan; Mr. M. Bush; Mr. T. D. Storrar; Mrs. R. G. Thomson; Mrs. I. M. McNair, O.B.E.; Councillor W. P. Earsman; Councillor G. Mulholland; Councillor D. M. Bonner, J.P.; Captain Sir Ian Bolton, Bt., O.B.E.; Mr. J. B. Hastie, O.B.E.; Mr. T. F. Cameron.

TRANSPORT USERS CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE FOR WALES

Lieut-Colonel H. Edmund Davies, K.C. (Chairman); Mr. J. Hodgkinson; Captain H. Leighton Davies, C.B.E., J.P.; Councillor W. L. Davies; Mr. W. Clayton Russon, M.B.E.; Mr. H. Lyn Jones, M.C.; Mr. R. G. M. Street; Mr. S. Davies; Mrs. E. Darbishire, J.P.; Mr. J. Highfield; Councillor T. Lloyd Williams; Councillor J. Howell; Councillor M. Selby, J.P.; Professor A. Beacham, Ph.D.; Lady Olwen Carey Evans; Mr. H. H. Swift; Mr. E. V. Swallow, J.P.

Road Haulage Permits

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Transport what action he is taking to ensure that where the name of a firm of road hauliers has changed by reason of the death of a member of the firm, such a firm does not lose the original permit to which it would otherwise have been entitled.

Mr. Barnes: I have no power to vary the provisions of the Transport Act on this point, but I understand that the Road Haulage Executive have stated that, while they are bound by the Act, they will, without entering into any commitment, be prepared to look at cases of hardship and decide whether there is any way in which the hardship can properly be alleviated.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is not this obvious error in the Transport Act, which the right hon. Gentleman himself apparently regrets, yet another indication of how undesirable it is to push these Measures through under the Guillotine, without any discussion?

Mr. Barnes: I am not aware that I have expressed any regret. Licences have never been transferable, but I think that in the circumstances the Road Executive are taking what I think would be the general course.

Mr. Renton: Does the intention to allow special consideration to be given to hardship mean that the original rights will not be lost when hardship is proved and that there will be no question, if hardship is proved, of merely giving a discretion to the Commission?

Mr. Barnes: I would not like to go into details of that kind.

High Street, Colchester (Re-surfacing)

Mr. Charles Smith: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered correspondence from the hon. Member for Colchester on the subject of the resurfacing of High Street, Colchester; whether he is aware that an undertaking was given by officers of his Department that this work would be carried out by the end of 1948; and whether he will make any statement giving hope of an early improvement in the condition of the road.

Mr. Barnes: I have considered the correspondence and made some inquiries, but I can find nothing to confirm that the alleged undertaking was given by any of my officers. In fact, this is a matter entirely within the discretion of the county council, whose responsibility it is to select the particular works to be carried out with the funds available to them. I understand that the council have provided in their current year's estimates for the resurfacing of a length of the High Street, but have not seen their way to include the part which is the subject of the correspondence.

Road Haulage Firms (Compensation)

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that in the large majority of cases of compulsory acquisition of road haulage businesses which had taken place up to 30th June, 1949, no provisional amount of compensation had been agreed, outstanding amounts of cash have not been paid and Transport Stock has not been issued; and what directions of a general character he will give to the Commission in order to obviate the resultant and widespread hardship thereby caused.

Mr. Barnes: I do not consider it necessary for me to give any direction to the Commission on this matter. My reasons involve a rather long statement which I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in HANSARD.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is disgraceful that these men's businesses are being taken from them and they are not being paid the compensation to which Parliament said they were entitled?

Mr. Barnes: I do not agree with anything of the kind and I suggest that the hon. Member looks at my statement, in which the reasons are fully set out.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Is the Minister aware that not only big road hauliers but men in a small way of business have had their businesses taken over from 1st April and have not yet received either the 90 per cent. compensation they were

supposed then to get, or even been able to make effective arrangements with the Ministry for valuation of their assets? Does he think that is satisfactory?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Are we to understand that the statement which the Minister proposes to circulate in HANSARD is more than a mere apology for inaction on the part of the Government, and contains some positive proposals for dealing with these cases of hardship? Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer include provisions of that kind?

Mr. Renton: In view of the great importance of the matter would the Minister consider making his statement at the end of Questions, instead of publishing it in HANSARD tomorrow?

Mr. Thorneycroft: On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman asked my permission and the permission of the House, Mr. Speaker, to circulate his answer in HANSARD. So far as I am concerned, I do not feel that I can grant permission.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Carmichael.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Further to my point of Order. If the permission of the House is not granted—

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman merely said that he proposed to circulate his answer; I did not think he asked permission.

Mr. Thorneycroft: With great respect, Sir, I distinctly heard the right hon. Gentleman say what I think is common form in this matter—that with the permission of the House he proposed to circulate his answer in HANSARD. Surely that is a matter for the House, and not for the Minister.

Mr. Speaker: It is for the Minister to decide how he chooses to answer. I cannot direct him how he should answer.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: When the Minister says, "With the permission of the hon. Member, I propose to circulate the answer in HANSARD," surely it is up to the hon. Member concerned either to give or refuse permission, as he thinks fit. If permission is refused, could not the Minister read the answer now?

Mr. Speaker: I disagree. I did not think the Minister asked for permission. He merely said that he would circulate his statement.

Mr. Barnes: I did say, Mr. Speaker, "With the permission of the hon. Member."

Mr. W. J. Brown: May I draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that three supplementary questions have been addressed to the Minister, and that not one has been answered. Could we not have the reply at the end of Questions?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not wish to detain the House, but the right hon. Gentleman has fairly admitted that he asked for my permission. That permission not being granted, I feel, knowing the right hon. Gentleman's courtesy, that he will make his statement either now or at the end of Questions. There are hundreds of cases of hardship.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot direct the Minister. If he chooses to read the answer, he can.

At the end of Questions—

Mr. Barnes: The following is the statement to which I referred.
The British Transport Commission cannot make payments on account of compensation until the properties affected by the notice of acquisition have been identified and agreed and a provisional ascertainment made. The position at 30th June, 1949, was that 469 road haulage undertakings had been transferred, of which 123 were taken over only in June and 131 in May. Of the total of 469 there were 35 cases in which the extent of the transfer had not been agreed and 148 cases in which the Commission were awaiting accounts and other information from the transferors. Provisional ascertainments in 130 cases had been calculated, or were in hand, and payment on account will be made as soon as legal title is verified and other essential formalities are completed. The remaining cases were awaiting valuers' reports and other information.
I am satisfied that the intention of the Commission is that all acquired undertakings shall receive a payment on account at the earliest possible moment, and that there is no need for me to issue directions: Machinery has been set up to expedite settlements, and I am informed

that undertakings which might otherwise suffer hardship are being offered an immediate payment in respect of their cash option. Speedy progress in respect both of acquired undertakings and of those yet to be acquired will depend largely on the co-operation of the transferors in quickly supplying the necessary information.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these men have had their businesses expropriated, and that they have perhaps been offered jobs as drivers, or perhaps no job at all? The result is that a lot of these men have hardly any money to live on, and certainly are quite unable to make any plans for the future arrangement of their lives, having lost the business on which they have depended for many years. Cannot the Minister do something to speed up this matter?

Mr. Barnes: I do not consider that there is any substance in that accusation because, up to 30th June, advances up to £2,000 in cash had been made in 81 cases—this applies to the small type of haulier to which the supplementary question obviously refers—and I venture to suggest that if these figures are analysed, and one takes into account the great variety of businesses, it will be found that the Commission have rapidly established considerable machinery to deal with this problem.
In addition, I would say that while I am satisfied that the vast majority of cases are being dealt with in a businesslike and expeditious way, if by any chance there should be some individual cases that have not been dealt with as rapidly as possible, I am confident that the British Transport Commission will look into them, because they are exceedingly desirous that in no case should unnecessary hardship be involved. However, as I stated earlier, in 81 cases advances have been made up to 30th June and, further, the British Transport Commission have now made arrangements to issue British Transport Stock on a monthly basis instead of a half-yearly basis.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Is the Minister satisfied, first, that he has enough valuing staff to get the valuing process completed within a reasonable time, and, secondly, is he satisfied that the valuing staff knows anything about the Transport Act? I


have cases which suggest that he has not enough valuers, because they have not even begun, and in some cases they do not appear to know the Act.

Mr. Barnes: It is quite easy for an hon. Member to make statements of that kind on the Floor of the House with that inference behind them.

Mr. Brown: It is not an inference, it is a charge.

Mr. Barnes: If it is a charge, I would suggest that the hon. Member brings that charge down to details and submits them to the British Transport Commission—

Lord John Hope: What about the Minister?

Mr. Barnes: Well, either to myself or to the British Transport Commission. It is the British Transport Commission who engage their valuers, and I do not think the hon. Member is entitled to make a public charge that when they appoint a professional person, they do not know whom they are appointing.

Mr. Brown: May I see the Minister at the end of Questions and I will then produce the two cases upon which I base the charge?

Mr. Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hauliers who are anxious to get these formalities completed have been unable to find the representatives of the Commission with whom they could deal, and will he kindly see to it that that matter is dealt with? Will he also tell the House how many more months he expects to elapse before acquisition is completed in the 400-odd cases which he mentioned?

Mr. Barnes: If the hon. Gentleman will study the details of the reply I have given, he will see that one of the biggest difficulties the Commission are up against here is that the requisite information is not submitted speedily and efficiently enough for them to come to their decision.

Mr. Shepherd: Is the Minister aware that many small hauliers are being compelled to accept prices that really amount to little more than scrap value, and will he tell the House what redress he proposes to offer to men who are being put in this position?

Mr. Barnes: That is a political statement, incorrect in character, and not justified by the facts. This House established the conditions under which these businesses would be acquired.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all we are concerned to see is that the minimum amount of really grave hardship is caused until we can get into power and reverse the whole of this position?

Glasgow

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement regarding the prospects of a general inquiry into the transport service of Glasgow and neighbouring districts with particular reference to the possibility of the electrification of some sections of the existing railway system.

Mr. Barnes: The British Transport Commission has informed me that it proposes to set up a committee of experts under the chairmanship of Sir Robert Inglis, to report to the Commission on the transport requirements of Glasgow and adjacent areas and to make recommendations. The committee will work in close co-operation with the Corporation of Glasgow. The membership of the committee and its terms of reference will shortly be announced by the Commission.

Manifold Valley Road

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Minister of Transport what consultations have taken place between his department and the Staffordshire County Council regarding the limited use of the Manifold Valley Road for vehicular traffic; and when the road is now likely to be opened for this limited use.

Mr. Barnes: This matter has been thoroughly investigated in consultation with the Staffordshire County Council and I am satisfied that no relaxation of the restrictions on the use of this track is practicable without considerable road improvement works, the cost of which would not be justified by the traffic likely to use it.

Petrol filing Stations (Report)

Mr. Symonds: asked the Minister of Transport when the Report of the


committee under the chairmanship of Lord Waleran, which was set up to inquire into the design, location and distribution of petrol filling stations, will be published; and what action he proposes to take with regard to the Report.

Mr. Barnes: The Report will be published in the course of the next few days. Before taking any action on it I propose to seek the views of the local authorities' associations and of the commercial, motoring and other interests concerned.

Mr. Symonds: Would my right hon. Friend consider setting some sort of time-limit for these consultations and discussions so that they do not go on indefinitely before some action is taken?

Mr. Barnes: I certainly should not allow them to go on indefinitely, but there is no frightful hurry about this particular proposal or Report.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will not encourage the construction of half-timbered mock-Tudor petrol stations?

Mr. Barnes: This Report deals with all problems of that character.

"C" Licences

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport the number of "C" licences issued during the first six months of 1949 or to the latest available date; the comparable figures for 1948; the total number of operators of "C" licences; and the number of vehicles operated by them.

Mr. Barnes: The net number of additional vehicles for which "C" licences were issued during the first six months of 1949 was 44,253 as compared with 51,572 during the same period of 1948. The total number of "C" licensed operators at 30th June, 1949, was 335,846 with 634,769 vehicles.

Mr. Ernest Davies: In view of the fact that the issue of "C" licences continues at the rate of approximately 7,000 a month and in view of the fact that during the passage of the Transport Bill the Minister gave an undertaking, which he has repeated since, to keep his eye upon the situation and to take any action which he thought necessary, may I ask him whether he has done so and

whether he has made up his mind what action he proposes to take?

Mr. Barnes: I have stated on more than one occasion that I have taken the precaution to get all the details in regard to these "C" licences and I have made a further statement that the vast majority of them are confined to relatively small traders.

Mr. W. Shepherd: Is it not a fact that these "C" licences are increasing because traders find the service rendered by the nationalised railways unsatisfactory and costly for their purpose?

Mr. Barnes: No. As a matter of fact, that is just nonsense because, as I have said, they are mainly confined to small retailers.

Mr. Edward Davies: Is not the Minister convinced that a case has been made out by the figures he has given that proof of need should be established before there is an automatic issue of "C" licences? This is going to prejudice the revenue of his nationalised concern.

Mr. Barnes: No, Sir; I am not convinced.

Mr. Renton: In so far as the increase consists of an increase of large vehicles and not of small vehicles, is it not a somewhat limited increase and does it not correspond roughly with the somewhat limited increase which there has been during the period in industrial activities?

Mr. Barnes: I do not know whether I gather what the hon. Gentleman says correctly, but I understood him to say that the greater part of the increase has been in large vehicles. I deny that.

Mr. Renton: I said, in so far as it is an increase in large vehicles.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Would my right hon. Friend consider publishing details of the issue of these "C" licences, showing how many are as regards retail trade and how many as regards general trade?

Mr. Barnes: I am circulating these figures, but publication of those details is another matter. I have no desire to withhold this information, but whether it justifies general publication is another matter. I will look into it.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Is it not pretty obvious from the questions addressed to the Minister from behind him that if the Socialist Party are returned for another term of office, no one will have a chance of carrying his own goods in his own vehicles on the roads?

Mr. Barnes: My general impression is that the questions I receive from behind are more acceptable than those I receive from the other side of the House.

Docks Emergency Committee

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Transport what staff and other facilities he has placed at the disposal of the Docks Emergency Committee for their duties.

Mr. Barnes: The Emergency Committee were provided with the necessary secretarial staff. In addition, the services of officers of the Ministry and, in particular, those of the Docks and Canals Division, were made available to the Committee. Accommodation for the Committee was provided at the Ministry Headquarters and at the Ministry's Mercantile Marine Office near the Port of London Authority building. Direct telephone lines were provided from the Ministry's Headquarters to the Mercantile Marine Office and from the latter to the Port of London Authority.

Sir J. Mellor: Is this organisation still engaged in settling in?

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Minister of Transport what recommendations he has received from the Docks Emergency Committee; and what action he has taken upon them.

Mr. Barnes: I kept myself fully informed from day to day as to the proceedings of the Committee and there was full consultation by the Committee with me and with my officers. The Committee have been responsible to the Government for the working of the Port of London during the emergency. The statements issued to the Press as to the build up of Service labour, the ships worked and the tonnage of cargo handled have already shown the success with which they have discharged this responsibility.

Sir J. Mellor: The right hon. Gentleman refers to their having "discharged this responsibility." Does that mean that they have concluded their labours?

Mr. Barnes: That is a matter for subsequent decision because the scheme is not finally ended until the Government deals with the question of the Proclamation. I should, however, like to take this opportunity of saying that this Emergency Committee have done a very fine job. I think they will also wish me to say that they could not have carried out their duties so well without the full co-operation of the Port of London Authority and everyone concerned.

Mr. H. Strauss: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Emergency Committee were consulted by the Government before they issued their midnight communique criticising the Dock Labour Board?

Mr. Barnes: I think that is not a matter which arises from this Question. It can be better dealt with when this is more fully discussed.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Motor Vehicles (Purchases)

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Supply how many motor vehicles have been purchased by his Department in the years 1946, 1947 and 1948, respectively.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. G. R. Strauss): A total of 13,138, 6,787 and 5,134 vehicles were bought for all Government Departments by my Ministry in 1946, 1947 and 1948, respectively.

Mr. Langford-Holt: The right hon. Gentleman told me last week that these vehicles cost £27 million. In those circumstances, and in view of the very large sum involved, would he consider issuing a fuller statement of the type of vehicles which are purchased, saying how long they remain in service and what price is paid for each?

Mr. Strauss: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question I can break down these figures easily. I am afraid I cannot give the price, but I can give the type. Most of them go to the Services.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether that includes the Service Departments?

Mr. Strauss: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Gammans: Are any vehicles bought for Government Departments except through the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry? Are they all bought through his Ministry?

Mr. Strauss: Practically all, with hardly any exception.

Mr. Baldwin: Is the Minister aware that this abnormal demand on the limited supply of vehicles available in this country means that food distributors have to wait for over three years for vans to carry on their business?

Mr. Strauss: No, Sir.

Staff

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of supply how many persons are employed at the Eastriggs dump in Dumfriesshire: and on what they are engaged.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: One hundred and forty-five persons are employed at the Ministry of Supply Storage Depot, Eastriggs. They are engaged on the reception, storage and re-issue of explosives, propellants and ammunition components.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this overstaffing causes considerable comment in the district? There is not very much for them to do, and if I send my right hon. Friend further particulars will he look into them?

Mr. Strauss: I shall be happy to look into any further particulars which my hon. Friend sends me.

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Supply what is the total number of staff employed by his Department in Delhi; what is the annual total of salaries paid to them; how many are recruited from the United Kingdom; how many are engaged locally; and what work they execute.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The answer to all five parts of the Question is "None."

Mr. Erroll: Is not this most gratifying for once?

Steel Industry

Major Guy Lloyd: asked the Minister of Supply whether, in view of the fact that the world output of steel will soon outstrip demand, he will undertake a re-examination of the capital development programme for the British steel manufacturing industry in the light of these forecasts.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The matter is continually under review.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Are not the Government doing their best to check steel production by their nationalisation policy?

Mr. Strauss: No, Sir. The hon. Member is doubtless aware that steel production has gone up considerably since the nationalisation of this industry was proposed.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Hotels (Building Licences)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Works whether he has heard of the long delays in obtaining licences for the repair or improvement of hotels; and whether, in view of their dollar-earning importance and other services to the community, he will modify the £100 limit and will put those with a certain minimum number of bedrooms on the same footing as businesses with a certain floor area, schools and agricultural buildings, which can spend £1,000 per annum without licence.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): I cannot undertake to change the present licensing limit for all hotels of a given size, but in the issue of building licences instructions have been given to ensure special attention for hotels catering for foreign visitors. There should not ordinarily be any delay in dealing with these cases.

Mr. Keeling: How does the Minister account for the delays of which I have sent him full particulars? Why does he not put hotels on the same level as other businesses?

Mr. Key: There was a little delay in the cases which the hon. Member mentioned, but all five cases have been adequately and properly dealt with. I see


no reason for including hotels with the ordinary sort of business.

Sir Stanley Holmes: Does the Minister realise that what may be termed the buyers' market has reached the seaside resorts and that people providing accommodation are realising that unless they can improve the amenities of their hotels, either by repair or replacement, they will be unable to cater for the requirements of overseas visitors? May I also ask him whether he realises that in many seaside resorts the building industry is a secondary trade and that very great hardship will be caused this winter unless sufficient licences of the kind mentioned in my question are granted?

Mr. Key: As I have already said, special attention is given to hotels catering for foreign visitors. In the normal course, the regional committees under my Department keep in touch with the state of employment in each area and they vary their licences according to the unemployment.

Mr. Shepherd: What did the delay amount to in the cases referred to?

Mr. Key: I have not that information.

Mr. Keeling: Is not the Minister aware that the poor condition of some British hotels is driving many people, both British and American, over to the Continent?

Mr. Key: No, Sir, I do not think that is true.

New Colonial Office (Model)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Works whether he will arrange for the model, now in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association's rooms, showing the relation of the proposed new Colonial Office to Westminster Abbey and the proposed new layout of Parliament Square, to be publicly exhibited; and if he will send the Press the proposed elevations of the new Colonial Office.

Mr. Key: The model is not suitable for public exhibition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because there are specific reasons in my Department. I will make available photographs of the elevation of the proposed new Colonial Office.

Mr. Keeling: Does the Minister realise that similar models have been exhibited

in the Tate Gallery? What is the objection to this model being exhibited?

Mr. Key: This is a model which was not done for exhibition purposes. It is merely used in the office for purposes in which the Department are concerned and it contains things which are not yet in existence in other parts of the area.

Captain Crookshank: I hope we are not to understand from that reply that what hon. Members of this House are allowed to see, is not suitable for other people to see?

Mr. Key: The point is that hon. Members wanted the model for a specific purpose and I put it into the room for that purpose. The general public can get all the information which is necessary from the photographs which we propose to distribute.

Dr. Stephen Taylor: Has the elevation of the new Colonial Office been submitted to the Royal Fine Art Commission?

Mr. Key: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Keeling: Would the Minister consider having a larger-scale model made showing only the juxtaposition of the new Colonial Office with the Abbey, as this is the most important site in London?

Mr. Key: I do not think that expenditure would be justified.

Food Office, West Lothian

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister of Works whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction caused by the announcement that a new food office for the County of West Lothian decided upon last December will not be made available until July, 1950; and whether he will make arrangements to ensure that callers at the present office will be adequately protected from inclement weather and the erection of the new office speeded up.

Mr. Key: I am fully aware of the need for improved accommodation for the food office in West Lothian and I regret that it will not be possible for the new building to be ready before July, 1950. As the present food office is on a main thoroughfare it will be difficult to provide outside protection for callers. My


Department is, however, consulting with the local authority and the Ministry of Food to see what can be done.

Mr. Mathers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the principal objection is to the fact that there is a suggestion that a start cannot be made before November this year? The matter has been in hand for a long time, and that seems an inordinate delay.

Mr. Key: We cannot start building new offices until we have a site on which the offices are to be erected.

Sir William Darling: Is the Minister aware that in West Lothian, as elsewhere in Scotland, there is a lively hope that no new food offices will be built in the future?

Architectural Assistant, Delhi

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Works why he is advertising for applicants for the post of senior architectural assistant in Delhi at a salary and allowances of £1,250 per annum; and what work, on behalf of his Department, will this individual be called upon to execute.

Mr. Key: The advertisement is necessary because the post cannot be filled from existing staff within my Department. The senior architectural assistant in Delhi is responsible for the architectural drawings required in connection with buildings for which my Ministry is responsible in India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Burma, Afghanistan and Nepal.

Mr. Erroll: In view of the fact that the British Government have left all these territories, is it necessary to indulge in a large amount of new building?

Mr. Key: The Government have not left these territories, in the sense that they must have representatives there as in other parts of the Commonwealth.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Petrol Consumption (Government Departments)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what were the total quantities of petrol consumed by Government Departments during the years 1945, 1946, 1947, and 1948; and what were the principal reasons for any considerable changes in these totals.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): As the answer to the first part of the Question contains a number of figures, I will circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The amount of petrol consumed by Government Departments in private cars between 1945 and 1948 decreased by over 5,000 tons a year as a result of various measures of economy. On the other hand, the amount of petrol used by Government Departments in commercial and similar vehicles increased during the same period by 27,000 tons. This was due chiefly to the restoration of their pre-war services by the Post Office, and to special building operations undertaken by the Ministry of Works.

Mr. Erroll: In view of the announcement made by the Minister a few months ago that there was to be a special economy drive in the consumption of petrol by Government Departments, may I ask how he explains the considerable increase that has taken place?

Mr. Gaitskell: So far as I remember, it was never suggested that the postal services should be cut.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: Where did the right hon. Gentleman get this extraordinary idea that the pre-war postal services have been restored?

Mr. Gaitskell: In comparison with the postal services prevailing in 1945, there has been a very considerable improvement.

Following is the information:


—
1945
1946
1947
1948



Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons


Private Cars
38,092
33,192
31,523
32,572


Other than Private Cars. 
60,755
64,011
79,904
88,333


Total
98,847
97,203
111,427
120,905

Petrol Ration

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what is to be the value of the N and L units in the motor fuel standard ration books for the months of September, October and November.

Mr. Gaitskell: The value of one unit will be half a gallon and the value of half a unit a quarter of a gallon.

Sir I. Fraser: Will the Minister consider the enormous advantage to the


public and to the entertainment and hotel industry of keeping the greater amount going during the month of September.

Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir, I have considered that suggestion, but I have also to consider the dollar situation.

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, in order to enable hoteliers and others to make their plans for the winter season, what arrangements he proposes for a standard petrol ration after the current ration books expire at the end of November.

Mr. Gaitskell: I have no statement to make at present.

Sir I. Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hotels and boarding houses have to decide even at this early time whether they can stay open in distant rural areas, and that one of the factors in coming to that conclusion is whether there will be any petrol?

Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir, I quite agree. I appreciate the desire of the hotel keepers to know as soon as possible, and I will certainly make a statement whenever I can.

Mr. Charles Williams: In connection with this question, will the right hon. Gentleman remember that special necessity of the two western counties in view of their more favourable and better climate?

Mr. C. S. Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the scheme put to him earlier that those who do not apply for an allocation of currency to spend abroad should be given extra petrol for use in this country?

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir. I do not think it is worth considering that one again.

Hydro-Electricity Schemes, North Wales

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what is the estimated annual saving of coal from the hydro-electricity schemes in North Wales proposed by the British Electricity Authority.

Mr. Gaitskell: I understand from the British Electricity Authority that the esti-

mated additional annual output which will be obtained from the extension of the existing catchment area at Dolgarrog and Maentwrog now proposed is 36 million units which, at the present average consumption of coal in thermal stations, would represent an annual saving of 24,000 tons of coal.
If the six major new schemes which are at present being investigated were developed, it is estimated that a further additional average annual output of 520 million units would be obtained which would be equivalent on the same basis of calculation to about 350,000 tons of coal.

Mr. Keeling: As it would take 10 or 12 years to complete these schemes, does the answer mean that the National Coal Board have no hope of being able to produce enough coal within 10 or 12 years to make this ruination of yet another of the national parks unnecessary?

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir. The Question addressed to me simply related to the amount of coal that would be saved. The hon. Member should not assume that the National Coal Board are in any way concerned with the project.

Consultative Committees

Mr. Raikes: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many of the Gas Consultative Committees have been established; and which have met.

Mr. Gaitskell: Councils for the North-Western, Northern, Wales, West Midlands, East Midlands, and South-Western areas have already been appointed and will meet when the holiday season is over. Invitations have been sent out for the remaining six councils and I hope to appoint them within a week or two.

Mr. Gerald Williams: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if it is his intention to receive nominations from ratepayers' associations for appointment to consultative committees in connection with nationalised services.

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir. The Electricity Act, 1947, and the Gas Act, 1948, make provision for adequate local authority representation and I do not consider it necessary to appoint representatives of ratepayers' associations as well.

Mr. Williams: Will the Minister be prepared to receive representations on behalf of ratepayers' associations?

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir. If the hon. Member will study these Acts, he will see that between one-half and three-fifths in one case and one-half and three-quarters in the other of the members of the consultative councils have to be representatives nominated by local authority representative associations.

Mr. Beswick: Would my right hon. Friend make a statement about the method he employs in connection with the appointment of these committees and from which bodies he receives nominations?

Mr. Gaitskell: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question down.

Gas Staff (Compensation)

Mr. Raikes: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power when the Gas Staff Compensation Regulations will be published.

Mr. Gaitskell: The preparation of these regulations necessarily involves careful consideration of the circumstances of the industry and consultation with interested bodies. This work is proceeding but I cannot yet say when the regulations, which must, under the Gas Act, 1948, be laid before Parliament not later than six months after vesting date, will be published.

Steam Small Dross (Price)

Lord John Hope: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why the price of steam small dross ex hoppers at Newbattle Colliery has been raised by 1s. 6d. per ton although the price of steam small dross itself has been reduced by 1s. 3d. per ton.

Mr. Gaitskell: This is a matter of the day-to-day administration of the National Coal Board and I have no information about it. I will, however, ask the Board to write to the noble Lord.

Lord John Hope: Does not the Minister think it was slightly unfortunate that, instead of being told straight away that the price had been raised, the customers of the colliery were given encouraging figures showing that it had

dropped and were afterwards told the truth, that there was a rise in price?

Mr. Gaitskell: That is really a matter of detail, and it is very much better that the National Coal Board should deal directly with the noble Lord.

Mineral Development (Committee's Recommendations)

Mr. Willis: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he has considered the recommendations of the Mineral Development Committee; and whether it is intended to implement them.

Mr. Gaitskell: I should first of all like to take this opportunity of thanking Lord Westwood and the members of the Mineral Development Committee for their work in preparing this most valuable report. The Government have decided to accept the main recommendation that the minerals included in the terms of reference of the Committee should be brought into public ownership and the necessary legislation will be introduced in due course. The other recommendations of the Committee are being examined.

Electricity Consumption, South-West Scotland

Mr. McFarlane: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he anticipates the need for restraint in the domestic consumption of electricity in the southwestern area of Scotland during the coming winter.

Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir, at peak hours.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH COUNCIL, POLAND (MR. C. G. BIDWELL)

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further inquiries have now been made into the resignation of Mr. C. G. Bidwell, who was head of the British Council in Poland, in view of the fact that Mr. Bidwell's resignation has been a severe blow to the prestige of the British Council in Eastern Europe; and if he will make a further statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): My right hon. Friend feels that there is nothing which can be usefully added to the statement made on 22nd June last.

Major Beamish: Does not the Minister consider that it was a very shaming incident, which has been magnified by the refusal of the Government and the British Council to make a proper explanation?

Mr. Mayhew: I think that a full explanation has been made. I agree that it is a most unfortunate incident.

Mr. H. Strauss: Who was responsible for the appointment of this gentleman?

Mr. Mayhew: He was appointed by the British Council in 1946.

Oral Answers to Questions — ISRAEL (ATTACKED R.A.F. AIRCRAFT)

Major Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has concluded his further discussions with the United Nations Acting Mediator on the subject of the five Royal Air Force aircraft which were attacked and shot down by Israeli fighters over Egypt on 7th January, 1949; what compensation he is claiming from the State of Israel; and what other action he is taking.

Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend has now received further indications of Dr. Bunche's views, but has not yet concluded discussions with him, and is not in a position to make a fuller statement.

Major Beamish: Surely we are entitled to some sort of further explanation of this matter, as six and a half months have gone by since this incident took place?

Mr. Mayhew: Dr. Bunche has been successfully conducting the Israeli-Syrian armistice commission. We shall resume discussions with him shortly.

Major Beamish: Cannot the House be given Dr. Bunche's views? Cannot they be made public?

Mr. Mayhew: He has not expressed views yet, but we have been able to see observers' reports in New York.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATOMIC ENERGY (INFORMATION)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the nature of the agreement between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of

America for exchange of information about the atomic bomb.

Mr. Mayhew: There is no such agreement, but His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom co-operate with the Canadian and United States Governments in the exchange of information on a limited number of topics related to atomic energy.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Have the Government informed the United States that, owing to the need for economy in Government expenditure, we propose to cut all expenditure on atom bomb manufacture until the dollar crisis is over?

Air-Commodore Harvey: Did the Minister ask his hon. Friend to withdraw this Question, as he asked me to withdraw my Question a fortnight ago?

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH SCHLESWIG (REFUGEES)

Mr. York: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the latest available figure of unemployment among the refugees at present living in South Schleswig; and whether any plans have been agreed for their employment.

Mr. Mayhew: Unemployed refugees in South Schleswig on 30th June numbered 24,170 men and 9,863 women. No special employment plans have been agreed for refugees as distinct from the rest of the unemployed population.

Mr. York: Have the Government taken any steps with the other Governments concerned to solve the problem of the large amount of unemployment in the area?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir, we have been in touch with the Governments of France and of the United States on the question of refugees in South Schleswig. We have reached an agreement, the details of which I shall be glad to send to the hon. Member.

Professor Savory: Is it not the case that very considerable progress had already been made with transferring unemployed refugees? Can we not have further details after all these weeks?

Mr. Mayhew: Progress has been made. I regret that the problem is still very grave.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY (SOVIET NOTE)

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has made to the Note of protest from the Soviet Government, complaining that the inclusion of Italy in the Atlantic Pact and the Italian request to the United States for aid in increasing the Italian armed forces and in expanding Italian military production, are violations of the Peace Treaty concluded with Italy by the Allies.

Mr. Mayhew: None as yet, Sir. When a reply is made it will be published.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Supplies, Bedford (Quality)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware of the high proportion of dirty coal sent to Bedford compared with other districts; and whether, with a view to helping householders until an adequate supply of screening and other machinery is available to solve the problem on a national scale, he will arrange for the source of Bedford's coal supplies to be at least partially switched to an area producing cleaner and better-quality fuel.

Mr. Gaitskell: The need to export as much good quality coal as possible inevitably influences the quality available for the home market. The coal allocated to Bedford is already drawn from a wide range of areas in three divisions of the National Coal Board and I am not aware of any special complaints recently.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will my right hon. Friend tell me, for the guidance of my constituents, what commercial procedure they can follow if they really have got an unadjusted grievance, as a great many of them seem to think?

Mr. Gaitskell: There is perfectly well-recognised procedure. I will write to my hon. Friend about it.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Has there been any appreciable increase in the machinery for treating and washing coal?

Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will see some of

the figures in the National Coal Board's Annual Report.

Brigadier Rayner: I cannot allow the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) the distinction he claims for Bedford. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we get just as dirty coal in South Devonshire?

Anthracite Allocations (Schools, Taunton)

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that no allocations of anthracite fuel for the year 1949–50 have been made to independent residential schools in the Taunton area, whilst allocations to schools under the county education authority have been reduced by only 33⅓ per cent.; and if he will explain the reason for this discrimination.

Mr. Gaitskell: Allocations to schools under the county education authority are made by the Somerset County Council from a global allocation covering all their requirements. Allocations to the independent residential schools are, of course, made direct. Owing to the scarcity of anthracite, it was originally proposed to substitute coke entirely in the allocations made to the council and the independent schools. But following representations, arrangements have been made for half the requirements of both the council and the independent schools to be met in anthracite. There has therefore been no discrimination between the council and the independent schools. The council, however, are free to distribute the anthracite they have available as they choose between their schools and the other users under their authority.

Mr. Collins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this readjustment will be welcomed, and that the original position was exactly as stated in the Question at the time it was tabled?

Mr. Gaitskell: I am glad to have had an opportunity of clearing up the matter.

Stocks

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what reserves of coal are available; and what plans he has made to meet the possibility of an exceptionally bad winter.

Mr. Gaitskell: Total distributed stocks of coal amounted to 13.2 million tons on 9th July and at that date were slightly ahead of the stock building programme. I have every hope that this satisfactory rate of progress will be maintained for the rest of the summer. Stocks of coke are also satisfactory.

Sir I. Fraser: Is the Minister satisfied that that reserve will see us through a bad winter, and that we shall not be let down as we were two years ago?

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir. I expect stocks to increase further, at any rate until the end of October.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIMITATION OF ACTIONS (REPORT)

Mr. Hopkin Morris: asked the Attorney-General whether His Majesty's Government have considered the Report of the Committee on Limitation of Actions; and whether they propose to introduce legislation in the near future giving effect to its recommendations.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): The Government have not yet had an opportunity of considering the Report.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTURBANCE, DEPTFORD

Mr. John Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a full statement on the disturbance which took place in Deptford, London, S.E., on the night of Monday, 18th July, when a fight occurred between coloured and white persons, and in which a large number of police were involved.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): I am informed that towards midnight on 18th July some coloured men began to shout abuse at passers-by from the windows of the common lodging house in Deptford where they live. A large crowd gathered and there was some disorder. The police in restoring order were assaulted and obstructed by these coloured men, who threw empty beer bottles, hot coals and other missiles at them. Fifteen arrests were made and seven policemen were slightly injured. Order was restored shortly after midnight.

Mr. Lewis: Is it not a fact that many of the coloured men involved in the fracas were stowaways? In order to avoid any misapprehension, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that in the experience of his Department the behaviour of these coloured men is not generally indicative of the behaviour of coloured men in this country?

Mr. Younger: I quite agree with the latter part of the supplementary question, but I would prefer not to give any further details because court proceedings about the matter are pending.

Oral Answers to Questions — OFFICIAL HISTORY OF THE WAR

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what action he is taking to bring to the notice of authorities in control of public libraries at home and overseas the publication of the first volume of the Official History of the War.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): 650 libraries at home and overseas have already received a special leaflet describing this first volume and will shortly receive a further notice. The volume has also been widely reviewed in the Press and announced by radio, and facilities for review and publicity in the U.S.A. have been afforded.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: What Government Department was responsible for sending round this leaflet, and to what extent is it the practice of the Government to draw the attention of public libraries to publications of one sort and another?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Stationery Office does the publicising and its catalogue circulates very largely to libraries both in this country and overseas.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any announcement to make about the Business for tomorrow?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): At the request of the Opposition the Debates in Committee of Supply tomorrow will be as follows:
A Debate on the docks dispute will take place on the appropriate Votes until


about 7 o'Clock and afterwards, a Debate on Fuel and Power, with particular reference to coal, gas and electricity, as previously announced.

NEWSPAPER REPORT (QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE)

Mr. Blackburn: May I raise a point of Privilege, Mr. Speaker, and submit a Motion, "That the report in the 'Daily Worker' of 22nd July of the speech of the hon. Member for King's Norton is a gross misrepresentation of his speech and a breach of the Privileges of the House"?
The matters to which I refer are contained in two sentences, and two only, of which the second is the important one. The first reads as follows:
Mr. Blackburn … went so far as to accuse the Communists of retaining Buchenwald as a concentration camp.
I do not complain about that, Sir, but it is the case, as reported in column 1677 of HANSARD, that what I did was to ask the Minister of State:
Is it not a fact that Buchenwald today is being used as a concentration camp by the Communists?
To which the Minister of State replied:
Yes, it is.
It is on the newspaper's second sentence that my complaint arises, and it reads as follows:
He"—
that is, myself—
demanded that the Greek Fascists be given the right to invade Albania.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what I said is contained in column 1679 of HANSARD, and so far as the word "Fascist" is used, I used it on one occasion and one occasion only. I said:
It is pathetic that we do not remember more often than we do in the House that in 1940, when we stood absolutely alone, the Greeks were the first people to put up a successful resistance to Fascist aggression.
Later on I said—and this is the passage which is misrepresented—
… I think we should recognise, in view of the continual aggression against Greece, the right of Greece, with ourselves, in collective self-defence, to go into Albania. If the Greeks desire to counter-attack any rebels who attack from Albania, we should recognise their right to track the rebels down to their lair."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1949; Vol. 467, c. 1677–79.]

I did not for one moment suggest that there should be any unprovoked aggression by Greece; I merely suggested the right of Greece, in collective self-defence, to track the bandits down to their lair. Therefore, I strongly resent the suggestion, first, that I suggested that anybody be given the right to invade as an act of aggression; and secondly, and far more seriously, that I for one moment suggested that the Greek Fascists, whoever they may be, should be given any rights whatsoever. On the contrary, I have consistently declared in this House my equal detestation of both Fascists and Communists.
On the point of raising this matter at the first available opportunity, I did not read the "Daily Worker" on Friday morning. It is not among the papers which I take for breakfast. It was brought to my attention at 3.30 on Friday afternoon, which was after the House had risen. On that occasion I went to the Speaker's Secretary. Unfortunately, of course, it was too late at that time to raise the matter in the House. But I would draw your attention, Sir, to column 1317 of Volume 334 of HANSARD—I understand that you know the passage, so I will not weary you with it—where it is clearly stated that an article published on a Wednesday morning was allowed to be raised on the Thursday in 1938. Therefore, with great deference, may I submit to you that this matter is a breach of Privilege?

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member bring the newspaper to the Table?

Mr. Gallacher: Mr. Speaker, is there anything to be said—

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing to be said at present.

Copy of newspaper delivered in.

The CLERK (Sir FREDERIC METCALFE) read the passage complained of.

Mr. Speaker: The Ruling that a matter of Privilege, to secure precedence, must be raised at the earliest opportunity, is well known. The newspaper containing the paragraph of which the hon. Member complains, was published on Friday last. On that day the House rose at 3.16 p.m. There was, therefore, very little time for the hon. Member to raise the case before the House rose on Friday. As he did bring


his complaint to my office shortly after the rising of the House, I propose in this case to allow him to raise it as a matter of Privilege. But I have had very little time to consider the matter and I will ask the hon. Member, therefore, if he so chooses, to raise it tomorrow, having given notice today of his desire to do so.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed:
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

The House divided: Ayes, 291; Noes, 119.

Division No. 217.]
AYES
[3.47 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Dobbie, W.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Dodds, N. N.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Albu, A. H.
Donovan, T.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Keenan, W.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Dumpleton, C. W.
Kenyon, C.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Dye, S.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Kinley, J.


Attewell, H. C.
Edelman, M.
Kirby, B. V.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Lang, G.


Austin, H. Lewis
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lavers, S.


Awbery, S. S.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.


Ayles, W. H.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lee, F (Hulme)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Ewart, R.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Bacon, Miss A.
Farthing, W. J
Leonard, W.


Balfour, A
Fernyhough, E.
Levy, B. W.


Barnes, Rt Hon. A. J
Field, Capt. W. J.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Barstow, P. G.
Fletcher, E. G. W. (Islington, E.)
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Barton, C.
Foot, M. M.
Lindgren, G. S.


Battley, J. R.
Forman, J. C.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Logan, D. G.


Benson, G.
Freeman, J. (Watford)
Longdon, F.


Beswick, F.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
McAdam, W.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Gallacher, W.
McAllister, G.


Binns, J.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
McEntee, V. La T


Blenkinsop, A.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mack, J. D


Blyton, W. R.
Gibbins, J.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Bottomley, A. G.
Gilzean, A.
McLeavy, F.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Gooch, E. G.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Granville, E. (Eye)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Brown, George (Belper)
Grenfell, D. R.
Mayhew, C. P


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Grey, C. F.
Mellish, R. J.


Bruce, Maj. D W. T.
Grierson, E
Messer, F.


Burden, T. W.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Middleton, Mrs. L


Burke, W. A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mitchison, G. R


Callaghan, James
Guest, Dr. L Haden
Monslow, W.


Carmichael, James
Gunter, R. J.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A
Hale, Leslie
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Champion, A. J.
Hamilton Lieut.-Col. R
Mort, D. L.


Chater, D.
Hardman, D. R.
Moyle, A.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hardy, E. A.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Cluse, W. S.
Harrison, J.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Cocks, F. S.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Collick, P
Haworth, J.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Collindridge, F.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Collins, V. J.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Oliver, G. H.


Colman, Miss G. M
Herbison, Miss M.
Orbach, M.


Cook, T. F.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Palmer, A. M. F


Corlett, Dr J
Hobson, C. R.
Pargiter, G. A


Cove, W. G.
Holman, P.
Parker, J.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Parkin, B. T


Cullen, Mrs.
Horabin, T. L.
Pearson, A.


Daggar, G
Houghton, Douglas
Peart, T. F.


Daines, P
Hoy, J.
Perrins, W.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hubbard, T.
Piratin, P.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'ton, W.)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Popplewell, E.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Proctor, W. T.


Deer, G.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Pursey, Comdr. H.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Randall, H. E.


Delargy, H. J.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Ranger, J.


Diamond, J.
Johnston, Douglas
Rees-Williams, D. R.




Reeves, J.
Steele, T
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Ridealgh, Mrs. M
Stokes, R. R.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Robens, A.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
West, D. G.


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E)


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Stross, Dr. B.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Robinson, Kenneth (St Pancras, N.)
Stubbs, A. E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Rogers, G. H. R.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
Wigg, George


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Swingler, S.
Wilkes, L.


Scott-Elliot, W.
Sylvester, G. O
Wilkins, W. A.


Segal, Dr. S.
Symonds, A. L
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Shackleton, E. A. A
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Sharp, Granville
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H (St Helens)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Shurmer, P.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Simmons, C. J.
Thurtle, Ernest
Willis, E.


Skeffington, A. M.
Timmons, J.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Titterington, M. F.
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J


Skinnard, F. W.
Tolley, L.
Wise, Major F. J


Smith, C. (Colchester)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Woods, G. S.


Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Viant, S. P.
Wyatt, W.


Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Walker, G. H.
Yates, V. F.


Snow, J. W.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Solley, L. J.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)



Sorenson, R. W.
Warbey, W. N.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Sparks, J. A.
Watkins, T. E
Mr. Hannan and Mr. Bowden




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Glyn, Sir R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Grimston, R. V.
Nicholson, G.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P


Baldwin, A. E.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Nutting, Anthony


Barlow, Sir J.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Odey, G. W.


Beamish, Maj. T. V H
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Bennett, Sir P.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Peto, Brig, C. H. M.


Birch, Nigel
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Pickthorn, K.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Boothby, R.
Hope, Lord J.
Prescott, Stanley


Bower, N.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Hurd, A.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Roberts, P G. (Ecclesall)


Buchan-Hepburn, P G. T.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Bullock, Capt. M
Keeling, E. H.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Butcher, H. W.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Carson, E.
Langford-Holt, J.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Channon, H.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Smithers, Sir W.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Spence, H. R.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Linstead, H. N.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Sutcliffe, H.


Davidson, Viscountess
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


De la Bère, R.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Drayson, G. B.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F


Drews, C.
McFarlane, C. S.
Touche, G. C.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Turton, R. H.


Eccles, D. M.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Erroll, F. J.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Maitland, comdr. J. W.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Fox, Sir G.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
York, C.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Mellor, Sir J.



Gammans, L. D.
Molson, A. H. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Loyd (P'ke)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Major Conant and Mr. Studholme.

Orders of the Day — IRON AND STEEL BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1.—(THE IRON AND STEEL CORPORATION OF GREAT BRITAIN.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 8, at end, insert:
The initial and subsequent appointments shall be so made as to secure the inclusion of at least three persons appearing to the Minister to have had wide experience of and shown capacity in the production of iron ore or iron or steel.

3.50 p.m.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. G. R. Strauss): I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Before I discuss this Amendment, or the others, which I know are exceedingly controversial, I should like to express a word of regret that we have not with us today the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir A. Duncan), who we hoped would be fully recovered by this stage in the proceedings on the Iron and Steel Bill, and whom we have missed so much in the earlier stages. I am sure I am expressing the desire of everyone on all sides of the House when I say we hope he will shortly recover fully. I understand that he has progressed well and I hope he will be restored to full health before many weeks are out.
Before dealing with this Motion, I wish to say a general word on the Lords Amendments. Normally, I intend to speak briefly, because most of these matters have been discussed over and over again at great length in Committee and on the Report stage. I propose to give reasons for the rejection of those Amendments which we think ought to be rejected. There are about 60 Amendments which have been moved in the other place, 28 of which the Government propose should be accepted. They are mostly drafting points. Some of them were moved by the Government in another place and some by the Opposition. Those which are drafting points are concerned with proposals which in no way conflict with the general intentions of the Government. We do not, however, propose to accept any Amendment moved in another place which, in the opinion of the Government, would make any material or significant change in the Bill as it left this House.
There are 32 other Amendments which can be reduced to a group of about 12 and where we are suggesting to the House that the Lords Amendments be disagreed with. They can be divided into two categories. The first is concerned with fundamental principles which divide the Opposition and the Government and on which there is a gulf between us. Here we shall have no hesitation in asking the House to reject Amendments which, in the view of the Government, would completely destroy the value and benefits to be derived from this Measure.
There is a second category which concerns itself with less important proposals and which raises no question of fundamental principle but which, in the opinion of the Government, would make the task of the Corporation in running the iron and steel industry efficiently more difficult, or even impossible. We shall ask the House to reject these Amendments. Again, there are Amendments which, in the view of the Government, would harmfully and unreasonably confine the activities of the Iron and Steel Corporation and the publicly-owned companies to the detriment of the iron and steel industry and of British industry generally. These, also, we shall ask the House to reject.
There is a final set which embodies other restrictive proposals, apparently inserted on the assumption that the Corporation will consist of a number of ignorant busy bodies and that the Minister is an irresponsible nitwit right outside the control of Parliament. Those are propositions I am forced to reject and I hope the House will be with me in their rejection.
The first Amendment comes in this category. There is no question of fundamental principle, but I suggest to the House that it would be unreasonable and improper if we put in the Amendment which their Lordships have suggested. It requires that at least three of the members of the Corporation shall have had experience in the production of iron and steel. We discussed the composition of the Corporation at great length in Committee. I think we spent more than six hours discussing this and similar issues. I took the line the whole time—and still stand by it—that, having laid down the general type of experience


we require on the Corporation, it would be quite wrong for this House to specify that there should be so many with this experience, so many representing that interest, and so many with some other specialised knowledge.
It must be left to the Minister and others responsible to select the best possible people within the categories laid down in the Clause. Once we started laying down details and saying how many should have this experience and what type of person we should have, we would get into great difficulty. We might suggest a certain age, for example that no one over 75 should be eligible; that would be just as reasonable to write into the Bill as is this provision. I understand that the argument used in supporting the Amendment was that it might be possible for the Minister to appoint someone with no experience of the iron and steel industry. Of course, everything is theoretically possible but this is so ridiculous that I do not think it merits a moment's consideration. There will obviously be on this Corporation a number of people, at least three, possibly more, who have had experience in the production of iron ore or iron or steel.
4.0 p.m.
It would be quite unreasonable and improper and contrary to all precedent to write this sort of provision into the Bill. There is no such provision in any of the previous nationalisation measures, and there has been no suggestion subsequently that the commissions or boards established under the corporations concerned would have been better or more efficient if there had been a condition of this sort inserted in the relevant Act. In fact, as was inevitable, there have been appointed to all these boards and commissions men who have had experience in the industries concerned.
A very similar Amendment to the one we are now considering was discussed at great length in the Standing Committee, and after considerable discussion of the subject the Opposition withdrew it, agreeing that it was not necessary to press it in view of the explanations and the undertakings which I had given to them. For all these reasons I hope that the House will agree with me and disagree with the Lords in the Amendment which is now before us.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: The attempt by the Minister to ridicule the idea about making reference in the Clause to people who knew about the industry, was a dismal failure. I hope that the bowling will be of a higher order than that. The issue at stake has certainly been narrowed by the admission of the Government that no one but an idiot would have a Corporation that had not on it at least three, four, or even more persons—I think those were the words of the Minister—experienced in the production of iron ore or iron or steel.
I wish to try to show the House why I think those words should be retained in the statute. The first reason is one upon which the Minister touched, an attempt by the Government to say, "This is a very wide power but you must assume that the Minister is a responsible and sensible individual." I do not feel at all sure that that assumption is one which should impress us greatly. Had we been legislating about the docks, would it have been an entirely justifiable assumption that Ministers would act in the most commonsense way?
It is really not enough in these days to say that everything will be all right provided that the powers are wide enough and that no member of the public is ever able to claim that the Executive are acting outside those powers, and that we can leave everything else to the best of all possible Socialist Ministers in the best of all possible Socialist worlds. I say that is not enough because acceptance of such a principle, if it ever was good, has certainly been vitiated by recent events. Legislation must be precise on a matter such as this. It is not our function in this House to give unlimited powers to the Minister and rest on the hope that he will use them in a sensible manner.
The second reason why I hope that this Amendment will be written in the statute relates to the matter of patronage. For some reason or other the word "patronage" has had an offensive meaning to many Members opposite. I hasten to add that I use it for want of a better word, and that in this instance I mean by it the power to appoint persons to offices of profit which rests in the hands of the Government. That is properly called patronage but it seems to be regarded as an offensive term. I am not making charges but merely stating facts


that by the mass of this nationalising legislation the Government are day by day gaining greater and greater patronage now in a far wider field than any Paymaster-General in the 18th century ever imagined in his wildest dreams.

Mr. Palmer: Or industrialists.

Mr. Lyttelton: That has nothing to do with the question. In the 18th century the term "industrialist" as we know it, did not exist.
It is possible to appoint a whole body of ex-trade union officials or men-at-arms or whatever they are, to posts like this. All the Ministers say, "We shall not do it." If the right hon. Gentleman will not do it, why not provide for at least three persons out of the possible ten who will form the Corporation to be people experienced in the production of iron or steel? To wave aside such a proviso seems to me to be high handed in the extreme.
Could one imagine a Corporation which is to deal with this vast agglomeration of capital and companies which did not contain at least three members experienced in the production of iron or steel? If the answer is "No," why not put that provision in the Bill? The moment that the Minister waves that suggestion on one side my usually unsuspicious mind begins to wonder who the members of the Corporation are to be. In these days when we have such Government patronage, which is ever widening, and when we have had experience of those who have been appointed under this ever widening system of patronage, one feels that safeguards which might not have been necessary in other days are becoming more insistent and urgent.
We are also discussing consumer representation—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am not sure whether that is included.

Mr. Charles Williams: On a point of Order. Are we discussing the first two Lords Amendments together or are they to be discussed separately?

Mr. Speaker: We are discussing only one Amendment at a time.

Mr. Lyttelton: Then I shall confine my arguments to the two points I have

made. The first is that it would be quite unjustifiable for this House to adopt this laissez faire attitude. All our experience shows that on occasion Ministers do not act in a commonsense way. Instances of that are very present in our minds at this moment. Secondly, when the area of Government patronage is so large it is necessary to rid them so far as possible of the embarrassment of being solicited by their friends for jobs for which they would otherwise be disqualified. It is not a very reactionary proposal that at least three out of the ten people who are to be the board of this Corporation shall have some experience of the matters with which they will have to deal. I hope that the House will reject the Minister's Motion.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I propose to try to deal with this matter in as uncontroversial a manner as possible. The most controversial thing which I shall have to say is that I was completely dissatisfied with the Minister's arguments in favour of disagreeing with the Lords Amendment, as no doubt the right hon. Gentleman expected me to be. On this matter, we should be able to start what I am afraid will be very controversial deliberations in a fairly amicable manner. The proposal of the Lords is that we should put on the board three persons:
appearing to the Minister to have had wide experience of and shown capacity in the production of iron ore or iron or steel.
I should not think that any Member of this House could conceive of this Corporation not having on it three persons who could be so described. Thus we start with a common ground of fact. I have carefully read the speeches made on this matter and I have not noticed that anyone has seriously disputed that proposition.
We are agreed, therefore, that the Corporation will have on it this number of people—I very much hope it will have more—who are so qualified. There are to be at least three of them. Then we come to the point of whether it is wise to put that provision in the Bill. It is to that question I propose to address myself, on the assumption that the Bill is a good one and that we wish to make the Corporation the best possible Corporation. I hate the Bill. I think it is a wicked, wanton and bad Bill at the present time,


but for the purposes of this argument I shall assume that the Bill is a good one and that we want to make the Corporation the best possible.
The whole argument for nationalisation that has been put forward has been that by public ownership and control the public or the people are to have some say in the management of a great industry which has for too long—so it is said—been in private hands. If we are to have that public ownership and control, I suggest it is essential to have Parliamentary control of the operation of the industry. It is quite obvious, and experience has shown us, that in fact the amount of control which Parliament does operate over the workings of these industries is very small indeed. I am suggesting that in this particular instance we operate a bit of Parliamentary control in advance and lay down certain things, if, for example, the Minister should choose to constitute this Corporation in a particular way with which we do not agree.
There are very few opportunities for consideration in Parliament; it is extremely difficult to get at the Minister or to get a Debate and have these matters raised after the event as we have found in the case of other nationalised industries. Is it therefore not wiser and more expedient to exercise Parliamentary control in advance to see that this particular matter is dealt with in time? It is argued that we must not hedge in the Minister with all sorts of restrictions and controls. If that is the position, why did we say that the Minister should appoint such persons as seem to him right to run the industry? We have a long Clause dealing with a number of matters relating to the iron and steel Corporation. We choose the name for the Minister. We do not allow him to choose the name, and perhaps that is reasonable. We fix the numbers. Is not that a restriction on the Minister? If the Minister is to be a reasonable man who will do what is right and proper, why does Parliament say the number must be between six and ten? It is because Parliament, or rather at this moment the House, decided on a degree of Parliamentary control.
We deal with the question of disqualification. We deal with what is to happen to people who have financial or other interests who may be members of the Corporation. We say that the remunera-

tion of the members of the Corporation is to be subject to Treasury control. It might be argued that no reasonable Minister would permit the paying of salaries not approved by the Treasury; but nevertheless we have thought it right to deal with certain specific matters in deciding what shall be the composition of this Corporation and what shall be certain matters ancillary to the appointment of the members, and so on. If that be the case, and we all agree that at least three of them are to have
wide experience of and shown capacity in the production of iron ore or iron or steel
why should we not put that into the Bill? It is dealing in a broad general way with the broad qualifications for membership and I think that the right hon. Gentleman is being exceedingly obstinate over this matter.

Mr. Erroll: I would ask the Minister this Question. Does he always intend to appoint at least three people to the Corporation who have had experience in the production of iron and steel? He is not even prepared to admit that. I should have thought there should always be a bare minimum of three with such experience, in which case it would be perfectly in order to write that in the Bill; but he is not prepared to give us even that assurance and it becomes absolutely essential to write it into the Bill. He is not prepared to give an undertaking to this House that there shall be three people on this Corporation who have any experience of the industry whatsoever.
4.15 p.m.
The Minister claims that he must have Ministerial freedom. It has been shown throughout the passage of this Bill that the only thing with which the Minister is concerned is his own freedom in the matter. Private industry and what is left outside, shareholders and directors, can be restricted; but the Minister must have freedom. Yet he is not prepared to give an undertaking that there shall be three people on the Board who have had
wide experience of and shown capacity in the production of … iron or steel.
The Minister goes on to quote what we are now familiar with; that it has not been necessary to write a similar provision into previous nationalisation Measures. But this is a different nation-


alisation Bill. It is the first Bill in which the old structure of the existing companies is allowed to be retained. This is the first Bill in which we find there is to be a non-functional board. In Committee there was much discussion on what was a functional board and what was a non-functional board. The Minister ultimately convinced us that what he intended was a board with no day-to-day executive responsibility. That is well and good and it seemed a sound way to arrange the affairs of the Corporation; but since these men are not to have day-to-day executive powers they should have experience of the type of companies they will be called upon to control.
The Minister made great play with the fact that the subject was argued in Committee; but what is discussion in Committee compared with the importance of discussing the matter in the House itself? Many of my hon. Friends who did not have the opportunity of serving on the Committee will welcome the opportunity now of making their contribution on this most important principle. It may be said that the Minister is a man of wisdom and discretion. We have certainly seen many examples of his ministerial ability in one form or another, but we cannot expect that the Minister will always be the same person. Some of us shudder at the prospect of his understudy the Parliamentary Secretary having the opportunity of appointing members of the board of this Corporation, and we cannot allow this principle of unfettered freedom for the Minister in matters of this kind.

Mr. William Shepherd: The Minister rather disappointed us in his proposal to disagree with the Lords in this Amendment. All he says, in effect, is that we have never before found it necessary to write such a provision into a nationalisation Measure, and therefore there is no reason why we should do so. That is the weakest argument which the right hon. Gentleman could have used. There is discontent in the hierarchy of our nationalised concerns. There is discontent which is not confined to this side of the House, but is to be found on the other side as well. There is discontent with the men appointed to run the nationalised industries.

Mr. Rogers: Can the hon. Member mention one nationalised industry where the management includes only a few people experienced in that industry?

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman would have been wiser not to have asked that question, because shortly I am coming to a point which deals with that matter, and we shall see the necessity for the kind of thing which their Lordships are trying to do in this Amendment. It is perfectly true to say that there is all-round discontent with the functioning of the nationalised boards and with the type of people appointed to them. Therefore it is essential for us to insist upon taking very special care in deciding the composition of this board to manage the iron and steel industry.
The hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Rogers) asked what industry could be referred to which had people on it who had no knowledge of production in the industry concerned. I have only to refer to the National Coal Board which should have been known to the hon. Gentleman. How many men are on the National Coal Board today who have had experience of the actual production of coal? I understand there were two. One resigned in disgust and a solicitor was appointed in his place. So far as I know, there is one member who is experienced in the production of coal.
Therefore we can say that here is an instance where a vital industry has been allowed to fall into the hands of solicitors, lawyers, accountants and indeed anybody except those who have experience in the industry, and that is a justification for supporting strongly the view which their Lordships have taken with this Amendment. I cannot understand the mentality of the Minister when he says that it would be wrong to specify people who know the industry. How can it be wrong to specify that there should be a minimum number of people who know something about the job they will have to do? Is it generally considered that a complete lack of knowledge of the job is a qualification?

Mr. Haworth: On the London Midland and Scottish Railway, when that great combine was in difficulties, the job went to Sir Josiah Stamp who had never touched a railway and knew nothing about them. He was


paid £15,000 a year and made president of the executive. He had never seen a railway before then.

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman ought to address himself more closely to my argument. I know that Sir Josiah Stamp was paid £15,000 and I have no doubt that he was worth a lot more. The fact that he was called in as a consultant—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): No.

Mr. Shepherd: Yes. He was called in just in the same way as Sir Henry Thornton was called in by the Canadian National Railways.

Mr. Haworth: He was not called in as a consultant but as the boss of the railway—the head, the managing director, the president of the executive.

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman ought to get his facts rights. Sir Josiah Stamp was never called in as managing director of the L.M.S. Railway Company. He was president of the executive. I hope it is not necessary to explain to hon. Gentlemen opposite the difference between functions of a managing director and those of a president.

Mr. Lindgren: We worked for him. We ought to know.

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman might be responsible for some of the bad results which occurred.

Mr. Mitchison: How much experience in production has the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir A. Duncan) had? I believe that he was a Glasgow solicitor.

Mr. Shepherd: I cannot understand why the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has such a loose mind. I do not say, and neither does the Amendment, that every member of the board shall be a person connected with the production of iron and steel. We are not asking for that. Our request concerns a very simple point which ought to impress itself even on the mind of the Minister. We ask that there should be a minimum number of people connected with the production of iron and steel. All our experience of the boards of nationalised industries since the last General Election points to the wisdom of approving this Amendment. I hope that hon. Members opposite will not be

browbeaten by the Whips into supporting the Minister when in fact they know that the Government attitude is wrong.

Sir Peter Bennett: I rise because the Minister suggested that this question had been thoroughly threshed out in Committee. Many of us were not on the Committee upstairs. I am sure that the Minister would not deny that we have a perfect right to air our views now if we feel strongly on the matter. We may be asked why we did not take the opportunity of intervening during the Report stage. I have been travelling to and from America in connection with productivity and dollar earning, and I do not apologise for having been absent when the Report stage of this Bill was taken.
I returned to this country in time for the Third Reading and I said something then, but had I attempted to go into detail and to make some of the comments which I should like to make today, I should have been ruled out of Order. In spite of the fact that the Minister may have heard all this before, I intend to say it again. One of these days I shall be called upon to give an account of my stewardship to my constituents. It will be no use if I say that somebody else said all that was necessary. They will want to know what I did and said.
I feel very strongly on this matter. The Minister refuses to accept a suggestion which seems to me eminently reasonable—that at least three of the persons appointed by him should have had certain experience. His argument is, "You must leave that. You must not fetter the discretion of the Minister." Surely the Minister would not argue that three experienced men would be too many. He will probably say, "You can depend upon the Minister doing the sensible thing." If the present Minister could give a guarantee that he would always be in office, I would trust him. I believe that he would do the sensible thing. But having listened to some of the remarks of those who sit behind him, I shudder to think what they would do, or what they would think sensible, if any of them held office. The Minister may say that there is not much possibility of that, but when I think of the changes I have seen on the Front Bench opposite in my short experience, I begin to think that everything is possible there.
In supporting the Amendment, we are not asking for very much. We are asking for a guarantee that at least three people appointed to the board should know something about iron and steel. I have conducted a good many business negotiations. Very often we have reached a stage when my colleagues have said, "Do not give way. We do not mind, but we want to keep freedom." My attitude has always been that if we agree, or if we do not mind, we should give way and get a little credit for it. I am sure that the Minister will make certain that three experienced people will be appointed, and I cannot see why he should not do the gracious thing and say, "We will give you the three, because in any case, we should see that three were appointed.,"

Mr. S. N. Evans: The hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) was wrong in what he said about the Coal Board. To the best of my recollection, the Coal Board started with four members who had intimate knowledge of the industry for many years. There was Lord Hyndley, Sir Charles Reid, who has now gone, Sir Eric Young and Mr. Ebby Edwards.

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I was speaking of people who have had experience in the production of coal. The Amendment refers to people who have had actual experience in the production of iron and steel.

Mr. Evans: I should have thought that the experience of these men would have adequately equipped them for membership of the Coal Board. However, I understand the motives behind this Amendment. I do not quarrel with them. My problem is one of definition. How should we determine who has had, in the words of the Amendment:
… wide experience of and shown capacity in the production of iron ore or iron or steel.
How should we determine whether or not candidates for membership of the board had those qualifications? For example, a very successful firm in the steel industry is the Richard Thomas organisation. For 30 years, their chairman was the secretary of the Prudential Assurance Company. I should like to ask the Opposition whether they think that a person with that background—including his ex-

perience as chairman of Richard Thomas—would qualify for membership of the board. If a man has had a long period of service on the board of a privately-owned unit within the industry, would he be regarded as qualified for the job of director of the board?
When one considers the names of some directors, one finds that their activities are nearly as many and as diversified as the products of the industry they serve. On one board there are men who are directors of shipping and insurance companies and of financial trusts. They are concerned in various fields far removed from the production of iron and steel. I should like to know whether it would be taken for granted that a man on the board of such a company would be qualified to sit on this nationalised steel board. I am as anxious as anybody opposite about the personnel going to serve this dynamic and diversified industry. We do not want old-age pensioners either from the trade union movement or the Army or Navy or any other field of action.

Mr. Erroll: You will get them.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Evans: We shall not. We do not wish to see appointments to this board made in the light of its being a nice hammock for somebody in the evening of his days. We want members with the rich red blood of ambition still coursing through their veins. I think everyone on this side of the House is just as jealous in this matter as the Opposition.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) asked how we would determine whether people had had
wide experience of and shown capacity in the production of iron ore or steel.
His quarrel is not with us but with the Minister, for the words in the Clause as it stands are even vaguer than those we seek to introduce. If the Minister is content to accept that a number of the members of the board shall appear to him to be "persons who have had wide experience of and shown capacity"—then so are we. As for the kind of person willing to serve on this Corporation, I hesitate very much at this stage in the summer, with the prospect of one thing and another in the course of the next few months, to suggest any names. Most of the people I know in the industry


would be very reluctant to put themselves forward for membership of a board which they know very well will never come into being.
As usual, the Minister has taken his right at the earliest possible stage to introduce the word "flexibility" into the argument. We had it in Committee, on Report, and on Third Reading, and I was interested to note that the spokesman for the Government in another place never introduced the word. He produced two reasons for rejecting their Lordships' Amendments, neither of which the Minister has brought up today. They were so irrelevant that I shall not weary the House with them. We insist that Parliament should have the right to act as shareholders of any company, whether large or small, should have the right to act and determine what should be the quality and what should be the membership of a board, without laying down too rigid rules; that it should lay down in general the number of persons, with a given quality and character.
We have constantly been told by the Government that if and when the iron and steel industry is nationalised the whole business belongs to the nation and Parliament becomes the shareholders on behalf of the nation. By that means democratic control is retained. Parliament, then, is absolutely right to lay down in broad categories who the persons shall be to dominate and control the industry on behalf of the public. In my submission, their Lordships are entirely right to insist that on a Corporation which, by and large, controls the great productive—and I emphasise the word "productive"—capacity of this vast industry, there should be a definite number of persons, a minimum of the Corporation, who should have had experience in the production of the material. While we accept the same degree of flexibility and agree that the board should not be a functional board to any extent, yet we consider that there is ample ground for saying that a proportion—three people out of ten, or one-third—[Interruption.] The Clause says:
The Corporation shall consist of a Chairman and not less than six nor more than ten other members.
If it were six it would be one-half, and even in the case of one-half, when the entire work of the board is associated

with productivity, then one-half is not too great a proportion to lay down as to be composed of persons who have had experience in production.
I cannot understand how the Minister can refuse this simple right and reserve to himself in this essential the flexibility which he needs. We do not want a functional board. It is not to be composed of particular individuals—a solicitor, a financier, a productivity man and so on. We agree that is not to be the case. We also agree that the entire board shall not be composed, for example, of financiers or productivity men. That would be equally wrong. But surely it is reasonable and right that we should insist on having this proportion of, at most, one-half and at least one-third.

Mr. Pickthorn: I can quite understand the case being put that all these persons ought to be technically qualified, although I should think it a mistaken case. Although I should think it an even more mistaken case, I quite understand that a case could be put that none should be technically qualified. I could understand the case being put that it would be better for all these people not to be prejudiced by any technical knowledge in the matter but to act above and through technical advisers and managers. But the case which is most difficult of all to understand is when the Minister says there should be a few, but there should not be obligatory provision of, technically qualified persons: suppose there are to be eleven or even only seven—that there should be not less than three so qualified is reasonable. I did not gather that that was denied by the Minister, only he denied that he should be under a duty to that effect.
The Minister now shakes his head, but he has only himself to thank if, on that point, we are not wholly positive because, from his opening speech, I gathered him to say—and he will correct me if I am mistaken—that it was not conceivable that any Minister would appoint less than three persons with this kind of qualification. On the other hand, when he was challenged a little later from this side of the House as to whether he would give anything amounting more or less to an undertaking that he would not appoint less than three, he refused to rise to that.
I think I am right in saying that his speech was on the basis that no Minister


in his right senses, thinking either of the public interest or of the ordinary rules of common sense, could fail to do what we are seeking to make the Statute compel him to do. I think that was the argument. If it was not, perhaps he would correct me or some later speaker from the other side would correct me. That argument surely will not do. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans), of whose presence we have the advantage this afternoon, is always a candid debater and perhaps he will think there is something in this point.
I have always, with all sorts of Governments—Coalition, Tory, Socialist and the rest—continually opposed Ministers who have said this of something or other: "Of course the House is right to expect us to do that. Of course we will do it. Of course it would be contrary to any sense and against the public interest if we did not do it. But we do not desire that there should be a statutory compulsion upon us to do it." All Ministers are tempted to use that argument. I think Socialist Ministers are more tempted than others. I think His Majesty's present Ministers use that argument far more than any previous administration has done. But some of us have always resisted that argument, whether we were supporters of Government or not.
This is a House of Commons matter. I ask hon. Members to think that once we get to the point to which I gather we got in the Minister's opening speech—a Ministerial admission that the thing ought to be done—then it is not a party matter; it is a House of Commons matter—whether something which, of course, the Minister ought to do ought not to be made statutorily obligatory upon him; where everything that he is going to be able to do or not do is being given him by a statute, then I say it is a House of Commons matter, whether the limitation ought not to be put upon him by the same force and rules as the powers. That is a House of Commons question, and a question which people ought not to decide according to their party affiliations. I think I have a right to say that because I am sure that I have said it over and over again when we have had governments of different colours.
And further, this point brings us up against a technical question which the Government must face candidly if they are really going to expect what they call social democracy to survive. My own belief is that social democracy is as dead as a doornail now. That is my belief, and I think that pretty well everyone on the Continent, including those who call themselves Socialists, share that belief. But, the view of hon. Members opposite is that we are only at the beginning of a most glorious age after 20,000 years of Tory misrule, and that social democracy is going to lead us to extreme happiness very quickly, although for the moment it is held up by the holiday season and the stomachic derangements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is their view.
If they wish that view to be taken seriously they must face this technical question. How is Parliament or any other democratic assembly going to check what governments or corporations set up by governments do in the management of great industrial concerns? It is no use saying that the Minister can be trusted about this because he can be hauled up before Parliament. Even supposing that we could be sure of having one day a year on the iron and steel part of the Minister's Vote, the hon. Member for Wednesbury knows perfectly well how much of that day would be devoted to a question of this sort. Suppose that, in fact, there had not been technically qualified persons on the board, the hon. Member knows perfectly well that it would be impossible to get a vote against the Government on this matter. However badly the hon. Member for Wednesbury might think this appointing power had been exercised by the Minister, at some future day in the House of Commons he would not vote against the Socialist Government. If he did that would bring the Socialist Government down, because it would be made a matter of confidence.
Therefore, if there is to be any chance at all of social democracy working, it must come with clean hands. It must say that it is trying to do everything that can be done to give Parliament control over those things which Parliament can control. Here is an obvious case. Parliament is being asked to give immense and unprecedented powers to a Minister, and Parliament is asking to put this


restriction on the Minister, that of the Corporation of Eleven to be appointed by him, at least three must have, in his opinion, in his own judgment, technical qualifications of a particular kind. I say that anybody who is not prepared to support that is really stabbing social democracy in the back. Personally I do not care where they stab social democracy, but I do not think that that is the decent or the logical way to do it: it is a pity to see the thing that was their idol reduced to a mere welter of blood and—I was going to say "guts" but there was never much guts about it—a mere welter of pale blood and slack sinews by a lot of little stabs of nonsense in the back.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: The senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) has raised a point of importance. The contents of this Amendment are agreed by the Minister himself. The Amendment seeks to ensure that there shall be appointed at least three persons upon the Corporation with experience of production. There is no dispute about the contents of the Amendment. The contents are agreed. The dispute is about the power of the Minister. In these days we are seeing the powers of Ministers enlarged increasingly at the expense of this House and of the representatives of the people. The contents of this Amendment would be the best way of placing a limitation upon the powers of the Minister.
4.45 p.m.
Where should the power rest, especially when the industry is being nationalised? The power should either be placed in the hands of the Minister or kept in the hands of Parliament. Clearly it should be kept in the hands of Parliament. I can understand the restlessness and uneasiness of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans). He sees the point. I agree with his argument; there is no difference between us. The difference here is constitutional, namely, whether the Minister shall be responsible to this House and whether limitation shall be placed upon his absolute power.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I rise mainly from a sense of courtesy to the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans). He is always courteous himself, and I believe that any question which he proposes deserves an answer. He has

pointed out that it may be very difficult to decide who has had wide experience of, and has shown capacity in, the production of iron ore or iron and steel. But he has overlooked the fact that this Amendment really asks that three persons shall be appointed who appear to the Minister to have had wide experience of, and to have shown capacity in, those matters. There is no appeal from the Minister's judgment in this matter.
With reference to an interesting speech to which we have just listened from the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris), I would point out that this Amendment which has been made by their Lordships still leaves very great power in the hands of the Minister. It asks that in making his appointments he should have regard to the matters here laid down. His judgment cannot be questioned in any court. It cannot be questioned anywhere, but he simply has to satisfy his conscience, and I should not think that that would be a very difficult matter. This is a very reasonable Amendment. The hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen has got right to the heart of this matter, as he so often does. What this Amendment seeks to do is to put a limitation upon the powers of Ministers. I believe that we shall find it a very good thing in the course of time to take appointments to public boards out of the hands of Ministers altogether; that will be in the interests not only of the country, but of Ministers themselves. It would be a very good thing for their peace of mind and for the efficiency of their departments if this power were put into the hands of some body analogous to the Civil Service Commission or something of that sort.

Mr. Palmer: Where in that case would be the power of Parliamentary accountability?

Mr. Thomas: It could be obtained by less direct means. Parliamentary accountability would be exercised by different and more traditional means. We have been through all this before in our constitutional history. There was a time when Ministers appointed all the Civil Service, but it was found wise to take that power out of their hands. I do not wish to develop that point because I might get out of Order if I did. It may be wise to take this power out of their hands, but the Amendment does not ask for anything so drastic. It asks the


Minister to have regard to the desirability of including at least three persons who have had technical experience in the production of iron ore or iron and steel. Why should not the Minister make this concession? He implied that he will, in fact, do so. He will appoint three persons who have had this experience. In that case would it not be far better to have made the concession straight away. There is often a difficulty about where the onus of proof lies, and in this case I suggest it lies upon the Minister.
The Bill has come to us with these words included, and it is for the Minister to give us adequate reasons why he should not accept them. I cannot see any reason. We know that he is going to appoint three. If he appointed only seven persons in all—the chairman and six others—as a minimum and still wants to keep a few "jobs for the boys" he will still have four places after appointing three members with experience of the iron and steel industry. I have watched the matter fairly closely, and my own view in the appointment of the public boards so far is that these appointments have most justified themselves where there has been experience of the matters in question. Experience of these appointments has not been happy, and I suggest that the Minister should now give way and save further Parliamentary debate.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: This seems to be a thoroughly frivolous Amendment. It has been put forward on a basis which appears to me at any rate to have no foundation in the Amendment itself. The first claim for it is that the Minister should not have unlimited powers, but that his powers should be in some way limited. If that is the desire there is not a single word in this Amendment to bring it about. He will have under this Amendment exactly the same power as he would have without it, because all the Amendment asks him to do is to put on three persons according to his judgment, for which he will he answerable, according to the words of the Amendment, to nobody at all.
I see that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris), who made a most interesting speech in support of the Amendment, shakes his head. I do not want to debate it at length, but I invite him quietly to read the words of the Amendment to

himself, and ask himself what limitation those words would invoke upon him if he were the Minister and were asked to discharge the duties laid upon the Minister under the Bill. Without the Amendment, he would appoint members according to his discretion; with the Amendment, he would have to appoint members according to his discretion. There is absolutely no difference between them, except the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) that the Minister might not be likely to follow his conscience in the matter, unless an Act of Parliament directs him to do so, which seems a strange argument and one which hardly anybody else in the House would advance.
Another argument put forward was not merely that the Minister be limited, but that he should be answerable to Parliament. The words expressly are:
… at least three persons appearing to the Minister to have had wide experience. …
What kind of Parliamentary responsibility will it be? Someone puts down a Question and asks the Minister why did he appoint John Smith, and the Minister will reply that he appointed John Smith because he appeared to him
to have had wide experience of and shown capacity in the production of iron ore or iron or steel.
He might have been a company director, and he might have no association whatever with iron and steel for all the Parliamentary responsibility that will be involved in this Amendment. This seems to me to be a particularly atrocious example of an Amendment put in so as to waste the time of the House.

Major Legge-Bourke: I intervene in this Debate for the first time on this subject. I feel it is only right that those who have far greater experience of the industry should make their contribution before I intervene but this is the last chance for someone who cannot possibly be thought to have any vested interests or anything of that sort, to say what he really thinks about this matter. I believe that when the Socialist Party put before the country the idea of nationalising steel, the immediate reaction in the minds of most people was, "I suppose that means that the iron and steel industry will be run on much the same lines as the Post Office is today." I suppose that that could be


said of practically all the nationalisation measures put before the electorate in 1945.
The country has now learned the difference. There is a great difference between the way in which it is proposed to run the nationalised industries and the way the Post Office is run. In the Post Office we have a Minister we can cross-examine on day-to-day administration, but with the proposed nationalisation of iron and steel, judging by other nationalised industries, there will be very little chance of cross-examining the Minister on the day-to-day administration of that industry. For that reason we in this House should be very careful to see that when we give these powers to a Minister we make quite certain that the people actually running the industry should at least include those people who have a very thorough knowledge of the industry.
The Minister in this Debate is not contesting the idea of having experienced people in the industry on the Corporation. What he is contesting is being tied down to a specific number. His objection rests on the ground that if this Amendment were accepted, it would inevitably mean that certain classes of people would be ruled out. We should hear what type of people are supposed to be ruled out if this Amendment is accepted. My own feeling is that whatever may be held to be consequential on this Amendment, what we are dealing with now is the specific point of whether we want to tie down the Minister to a certain number of people who have real experience in the industry. That is only right, because Parliament will have so little control over the Minister or the industry when it is nationalised, that Parliament should insist upon a minimum number of people who know.
The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) asked the Opposition whether they thought that the type of person who was included in that category would be somebody who was a director of the firm in the days of private enterprise. That would depend entirely upon the purpose for which one man was being put into the Corporation. If we were trying to put him in for his expert knowledge of the industry, I think it is only right that he should be judged against others who have a working knowledge of the industry. It would be quite wrong for us

today to try to lay down one ruling as to former directors. We should judge each person on his merits, and it should not be purely whether he had been a director any more than it should be a sinecure for getting on to it. We should judge these people on their merits.
5.0 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that it is essential for a Minister in a Socialist Government to have the power always to spring surprise in order to divert attention. That is one of the oldest techniques of tyranny. Ministers who have sponsored nationalisation Bills in this Parliament know very well that if they once surrender to an Amendment such as this, to lay down the minimum number of people who must know the industry, the power to put someone on to the Board and spring a surprise will be gone. I think my hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) was on very much the same point. There is tyranny tramping through this Bill, and it is because we on this side of the House will fight tyranny to the last, that we are going into the Lobby to support their Lordships in their Amendment. We believe that the Debates in another place have been marked with objectiveness, and that they have treated this particular subject with objectiveness—an objectiveness it would be welcome to see on the other side of the House occasionally.
I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will forget what he has been trying to keep to himself—the power of surprise—and will realise that if the industry is to be run properly it must be run by experts, and that if Parliament is not to become a laughing-stock in the eyes of the world, it must prevent Ministers from having tyrannical power, which is what the Minister is asking for now.

Mr. John McKay: I have listened to the various points raised in regard to this Lords Amendment, and I think that the main arguments relative to it are the question of democracy, the question of a diktat, and the question of the spirit in which the Amendment was made. I think we have to realise that this is one of the important Amendments from the House of Lords, and when we talk about democracy, we do not appear able to set out a method of implementing


democracy, judging by the way in which Amendments come from the House of Lords. Well, of course, it is rather peculiar that we should get such an Amendment as this, to implement democracy, from a Chamber which is undemocratic itself. It makes one think that the people who argue this point—

Mr. Lyttelton: What has this to do with the steel industry?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The constitution of the House of Lords does not arise now.

Mr. McKay: With regard to the spirit of this Lords Amendment, when we remember the atmosphere that surrounds this Bill and this particular Amendment, we are bound to admit that there is some degree of political manoeuvre about it, and to my mind the whole Amendment is rather a diktat of the other House. It is also an indication that they have no trust in the Government of the day, in the way they are laying down these Bills and attempting to implement their methods of work.
What does all this amount to in reality? As my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) pointed out, in reality this Amendment gives no more power to Parliament. The Minister can appoint his three who have experience of and capacity within the industry, and that ends the matter. The House will have practically no more power than if the Bill had not been changed at all. There is very little in this Amendment indeed.
We have also to consider this. If this Amendment is not agreed to, is there any danger at all? What is likely to happen? Even the Opposition are admitting that in all probability there will be at least three men of experience appointed. It may happen that there will be four. The question arises, Can we trust the Minister to appoint the necessary people to carry on a necessary industry? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] After all is said and done, how can hon. Members judge? In considering this we must consider the question, Who is responsible for the Bill itself? Do those who are responsible for the Bill wish to have a successful instrument to work the steel industry? Are we sure of that? Why did they bring in the Bill? Was it not because they were particularly anxious—more anxious than

anyone else—to see that the steel industry should work in a smooth, efficient manner?
Therefore, if there is anyone or any party in the House emphatically and sincerely anxious to try to get men on the Corporation to direct the industry efficiently, it ought to be the Minister sitting on the Front Bench and the party supporting him. Therefore, to my mind, the serious thing is to ask, who has brought in what I would call a "plant"? This Amendment seems to indicate that some people are anxious to throw the Bill out, and to make it ineffective.

Sir Patrick Hannon: On a point of Order. Is not this suggestion a violation of the Rule in connection with another place?

Mr. McKay: I do not see a point of Order there.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not gather that the hon. Gentleman on this occasion was reflecting on another place. In any event, he must not do so.

Sir P. Hannon: I submit to you, Sir, that the whole trend of the hon. Gentleman's discourse is a continued series of reflections on another place.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the hon. Member's reflections were directed rather to another portion of this House.

Mr. McKay: Of course.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Is it in Order to describe an Amendment that has come from another place as a "plant"?

Mr. McKay: Are we to criticise the spirit in which this Amendment was made? Surely we are entitled to do so.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to impute motives either to another place or to Members of this House. I thought, if he will forgive my saying so, that he was rather tending in that direction.

Mr. Harrison: Is it suggested, then, that we are to consider this Amendment in a sort of vacuum, as though it had no motive whatever behind it?

Mr. McKay: The whole point is this. This Amendment is one of those ineffective things. When we analyse it, we find it is simply an attempt to amend the Bill substantially. Is that so? We have already found that there is no


really greater authority given to this House by this Amendment. What would be the effect of it in reality? The effect would be that the House of Lords would show the House of Commons how to deal with things, how to do its business, because it cannot trust this House to carry out what the Bill proposes. I do not want to take up more time, and will conclude by saying that I think the Amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. Charles Williams: I hope the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) will excuse me if I do not go into every detail of his most interesting argument. I think that that is not a matter for me to deal with, but rather one for the Government, because he did manage to import so much into his argument to damage the position of the Government that, from that point of view, I think he ought to be dealt with officially rather than by some humble Member of the Opposition. I should like to say one or two words about the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who entered into one of those legal arguments of which he is so fond. As it is obvious from the fact that he is now leaving the Chamber that he does not like listening to criticism of himself, I will leave him alone. Quite clearly he was merely trying to waste the Government's time, a thing we ought not to do—at any rate not in a frivolous way.
My hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn)—who, I am glad to say, has a cleaner record than most in this respect—pointed out that he has continually protested against what the Government are doing by refusing this Amendment, which would effect what we wish to do in giving the House of Commons power to give directions to Ministers themselves. To my mind, that is the crux of the matter. I must congratulate my hon. Friend on doing at any rate one thing, and that is converting not only the Tory Party to this great principle, but also, judging from their spokesman the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris), the smaller section of the Liberal Party. That is a very considerable achievement.
Let me now turn to one or two of the reasons which the Minister was careful enough to advance as to why he did not wish to have this Amendment. Whatever

else we may say about the Minister, no one who has sat and listened and tried to understand him and this Government would ever expect them to wish to have in a Bill anything which laid down that they must choose people with experience. Such a thing would be wholly contrary to what the Socialist Ministers have so far done. But when he sees that these people are to have not only experience but also capacity, the Minister, who does not look at these things very deeply, shies off and says that we shall not have it under any circumstances. That is quite natural; we expect it of the Government. We have had that again and again. The Home Secretary, whom I am glad to see here, is as good at that job as anyone.
The fact is, we are not dictating to the Minister. As has been pointed out, the Minister will have power to appoint whoever he likes, and if a mistake is made we can question the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman would be well advised in his own interests, and in order to strengthen his position, instead of refusing this Amendment to say, "All right, I wish to appoint people who have great knowledge, so I accept what the House of Commons and the other place says, and I will accept these simple words to show that my intentions are not only good but sincere." The right hon. Gentleman says he intends to do this, that and the other. He so often praises himself; no one else does it nearly so much. I would point out that he made one very interesting statement when he said he feared that someone might think the Government was not very sensible. Well, many people think that. Of course, I am not among those who, even if I were woken up in the middle of the night, could possibly say that the Government were not sane. The only people who can do that are those who know the Government very much better than I do.
In the light of what has happened in the last few days—which has not necessarily anything to do with this Amendment—I hope that we shall not have an appeal by the Minister on this or any other Amendment that we must expect the Government to do sensible things. Such a thing is so contrary to the views of those who know the Government well, that it would be a scandal for the Minister to waste the time of the House by putting forward that argument which no one believes—certainly one of the highest


officials of His Majesty's Government did not believe it last week.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Edgar Granville: The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), whose excursions on these Bills we always enjoy, said that the speech of the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) had converted my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris). I would remind the hon. Member, who is usually more accurate about these things, that in the other place this Amendment was a Liberal Amendment, so that on this occasion the hon. Member is the converted party and I welcome his support.

Mr. C. Williams: I apologise if I seemed to cast any reflection on the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris). I did not wish to do so. I only wished to draw attention to the fact, which has now been amplified, that we on this side of the House are united in attacking the Government.

Mr. Granville: The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans), who always speaks with a great deal of common sense and candour on these matters, has captured most of the limelight in this Debate. He said in his interesting speech that he found it extremely difficult to discover how we could get a definition of men who had wide experience and had showed capacity in the production of iron ore and steel.
If this industry is nationalised—that is to say, if the Government are returned as a result of the next General Election—I have no doubt that the Minister of Supply, with the advice of his officers, will in his own mind have a pretty good, rough commonsense definition of men who have had wide experience in the iron and steel industry, because he has himself said that it is his intention to put such men upon the board. If and when that day comes—which will depend very much upon the General Election—I imagine that the Minister of Supply will have to sit down with a towel round his head and decide upon the 10 gentlemen who, in the light of our experience of nationalised industries, are to be put upon the Iron and Steel Corporation.
The right hon. Gentleman has got enough on his plate already, and if and

when that time comes he will have a very difficult time. There is not the slightest doubt that there will be a lot of coming and going; the Minister will have to consult all kinds of people, if not interests. I have no doubt that a great deal of pressure will be put upon the right hon. Gentleman to say that this individual, or that interest, or this type of skill, or that type of management or experience of nationalised industries, ought to be represented on the Corporation. I should have thought the Minister would have accepted this Liberal Party Amendment with both hands and said, "This is the kind of thing that will strengthen my hand when the day comes, if it does, when I have to appoint 10 men to form this Corporation."
I believe that our limited experience of the conduct of nationalised industries has shown that, on the whole it is men who have had good, sound, practical production experience upon whom will depend the success or otherwise of these industries. In the case of civil aviation, all kinds of people were appointed to the Board who had nothing whatever to do with civil aviation and knew nothing about it. Whether an industry is under national or private ownership, or whether it is a monopoly, it will never be built up except by the work of pioneers who are prepared to give their lives to it. We have had a brief reply from the right hon. Gentleman and presumably we are to have a further reply from his hon. Friend. I appeal to the Minister to look at this Amendment again, which is not an Amendment to wreck the Bill as some one has suggested.
I am perfectly sure that when this Bill has been passed, the right hon. Gentleman will see that he has had a reasonable Opposition which has given constructive and critical advice. I do not think he can complain of the attitude of the Opposition during the Committee stage. It would be in keeping with the general feelings about this Amendment if he would give it further consideration. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) said it was extremely difficult to know whether Parliament should have control or not. This great experiment is in its infancy, and I am sure that after a number of years it will be found, if we are to preserve our freedom and democracy, that eventually con-


trol will have to rest in the House of Commons. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to set a good example, and if he is not satisfied with this form of words to find some other form of words to achieve the object in view.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I hope I need not apologise to the House, as one of those who was not a member of the Committee which considered this Bill, for venturing to speak in this Debate. I would point out, however, that I am the only Member for a Scottish constituency so far called in this short Debate. I am fairly confident that when all the dust has died down and the people come to look at the action taken in the Palace of West-minister in regard to this Bill, they will say that it was another place which showed itself more truly as the interpreter of the wishes of the country.
I should not have intervened had it not been for something which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) said. He deliberately chose to withdraw his presence when my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) announced his attention of dealing with what he had said. That seems to me to be a procedure which is far from the general practice of this House. To make a point in a Debate without sitting through at least one or two subsequent speeches to see whether it is taken up is one thing, but it is quite another thing to rise from one's place as soon as a Member has announced his intention to criticise what has been said and deliberately to walk from the Chamber. I do not think the point he made should be allowed to pass without comment.
I understood him to say that it would not be difficult for a Minister, if he were pressed at Question time as to why a particular appointment had been made, to say that the person had special knowledge in the production of iron and steel.

The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne must have a very poor idea of the conscience of Ministers, even of the present Government, if he thinks they are deliberately going to evade the intentions laid down in an Act of Parliament by appointing three members of the Corporation without special knowledge in the production of iron and steel and try to get away with it. The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) spoke about not trusting the Minister. I would not go so far as that. It is not a question of trusting a particular Minister but of trusting Ministers who may come in five or 20 years' time.

Mr. Attewell: Will the hon. Member deal with the point my hon. Friend made in regard to accountability?

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. Member is not here to defend it. His point was that the Minister could get away with a bad appointment, or an appointment of some unsuitable person, by saying that he had experience in the production of iron and steel and that no one could say him nay. While the Minister might do that once or twice, I do not believe he would get away with it on the third time in view of his accountability both to this House and the country.

Mr. Molson: I am completely unable to understand why the Minister, who has made it quite plain that it is the intention the Board shall consist of experienced people with knowledge of the production of iron and steel, should be unwilling to accept this Amendment. It appears to be entirely in line with the general intentions the Minister has announced, and I hope that even now he will be able to accept it.

Question put, "That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 299; Noes, 153.

Division No. 218.]
AYES
[5.29 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Ayles, W. H.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Binns, J.


Albu, A. H.
Bacon, Miss A.
Blenkinsop, A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Balfour, A.
Blyton, W. R.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Bottomley, A. G.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Barstow, P. G.
Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Barton, C.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)


Attewell, H. C.
Battley, J. R.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Bechervaise, A. E.
Bramall, E. A.


Austin, H. Lewis
Benson, G.
Brook, D. (Halifax)


Awbery, S. S.
Beswick, F.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)




Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hardy, E. A.
Peart, T. F.


Brown, George (Belper)
Harrison, J.
Perrins, W.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Haworth, J.
Poole Cecil (Lichfield)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Popplewell, E.


Burden, T. W.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Burke, W. A.
Herbison, Miss M.
Proctor, W. T.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Hobson, C. R.
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Callaghan, James
Holman, P.
Randall, H. E.


Carmichael, James
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Ranger, J.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Horabin, T. L.
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Houghton, Douglas
Reeves, J.


Champion, A. J.
Hoy, J.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Chater, D.
Hubbard, T.
Rhodes, H.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Cluse, W. S.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'ton, W.)
Robens, A.


Cocks, F. S.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Collick, P.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Collins, V. J.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Robinson, Kenneth (St Pancras, N.)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Cook, T. F.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Cooper, G.
Jay, D. P. T.
Scollan, T.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Johnston, Douglas
Scott-Elliot, W.


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Segal, Dr. S.


Crawley, A.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Sharp, Granville


Cullen, Mrs.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Daggar, G.
Keenan, W.
Shurmer, P.


Daines, P.
Kenyon, C.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Davies, Edward (Burstem)
King, E. M.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Kinley, J.
Simmons, C. J.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Kirby, B. V.
Skeffington, A. M.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lang, G.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Deer, G.
Lavers, S.
Skinnard, F. W.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Delargy, H. J.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Diamond, J.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Dobbie, W.
Leonard, W.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Dodds, N. N.
Levy, B. W.
Snow, J. W.


Donovan, T.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Solley, L. J.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Sorensen, R. W.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lindgren, G. S.
Sparks, J. A.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Steele, T.


Dye, S.
Logan, D. G.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Longden, F.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Edelman, M.
Lyne, A. W.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
McAdam, W.
Stross, Dr. B.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
McAllister, G.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
McEntee, V. La. T.
Swingler, S.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Mack, J. D.
Sylvester, G. O.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Symonds, A. L.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Ewart, R.
McLeavy, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Farthing, W. J.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Fernyhough, E.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Field, Capt. W. J.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Follick, M.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Foot, M. M.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Thurtle, Ernest


Forman, J. C.
Mayhew, C. P.
Timmons, J.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mellish, R. J.
Titterington, M. F.


Freeman, J. (Watford)
Messer, F.
Tolley, L.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Gallacher, W.
Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mitchison, G. R.
Viant, S. P.


Gibbins, J.
Monslow, W.
Walkden, E.


Gilzean, A.
Moody, A. S.
Walker, G. H.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Gooch, E. G.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Goodrich, H. E.
Mort, D. L.
Warbey, W. N.


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Moyle, A.
Watkins, T. E.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Grenfell, D. R.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Grey, C. F.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Grierson, E.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
West, D. G.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
O'Brien, T.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Oliver, G. H.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Orbach, M.
Wilkes, L.


Gunter, R. J.
Paget, R. T.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Guy, W. H.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Hale, Leslie
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Palmer, A. M. F.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Parker, J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hardman, D. R.
Parkin, B. T.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)







Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Wise, Major F. J.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.



Willis, E.
Woods, G. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Wyatt, W.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Wilkins.


Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.
Yates, V. F.





NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Head, Brig. A. H.
Nutting, Anthony


Astor, Hon. M.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Odey, G. W.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Barlow, Sir J.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.


Baxter, A. B.
Hollis, M. C.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Pickthorn, K.


Bennett, Sir P.
Hope, Lord J.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Birch, Nigel
Howard, Hon. A.
Prescott, Stanley


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Boothby, R.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Bower, N.
Hurd, A.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Keeling, E. H.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Langford-Holt, J.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Butcher, H. W.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Challen, C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ropner, Col. L.


Channon, H.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Linstead, H. N.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Low, A. R. W.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Spence, H. R.


Davidson, Viscountess
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stanley, Rt. Hot. O.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


De la Bère, R.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Studholme, H. G.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Sutcliffe, H.


Donner, P. W.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Drayson, G. B.
McFarlane, C. S.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Drewe, C.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Teeling, William


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Eccles, D. M.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Erroll, F. J.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Fox, Sir G.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Touche, G. C.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Turton, R. H.


Gage, C.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Marples, A. E.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Gammans, L. D.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mellor, Sir J.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Glyn, Sir R.
Molson, A. H. E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
York, C.


Granville, E. (Eye)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Grimston, R. V.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)



Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Mullan, Lt. C. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harden, J. R. E.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Major Conant and


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Nicholson, G.
Mr. Wingfield Digby.

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 8, at end, insert:
The initial and subsequent appointments shall be so made as to secure the inclusion of at least one person appearing to the Minister to have had wide experience as a consumer of iron or steel for industrial purposes.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Jack Jones): I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
There is not much that can be said about this Amendment which has not already been said on the previous one.

The principle which the Opposition seeks to press upon us is, of course, the same—to restrict the Minister to specific numbers of certain categories of persons or individuals in the composition of the Corporation. One could argue at length why this should not be so, but, as I have stated, most of this has already been said on the previous Amendment.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Will the Parliamentary Secretary say whether, in his view, the Minister will appoint to the board one person appearing to him to have had wide experience as a consumer of iron or steel for individual purposes?

Mr. Jones: I should not be prepared to express a personal view. As the hon. and learned Member, with his wide experience and his Committee work, knows, there is a Consumers' Council on which consumer interests will be able to represent their point of view very fully. At the moment, I am not prepared to say that a consumer as such will or will not be appointed to the Corporation.

Mr. Lyttelton: After the somewhat Delphic utterances of the Parliamentary Secretary it becomes more and more obvious that the second Amendment differs very greatly from the first. I hope to discuss this in a very uncontroversial atmosphere because I think it would be a very sanguine Member of this House who said that the interests of the consumers, in so far as they are affected by these nationalised Corporations, have been safeguarded in a manner satisfactory to anybody on either side of the House. In the course of his second sibylline intervention, the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the consumers' councils. I shall refer to them in expressing the view that this House ought to accept the Lords Amendment.
Under conditions of private enterprise, for better or worse—and I do not want to argue their merits at the moment—at any rate the directors or the management of every private enterprise concerned have to pay a great deal of attention to the consumer, not, of course, for idealistic reasons, but because if they do not they can go "bust." That is a motive which makes the directors of private enterprise companies always have an eye to the consumer, and it is not much good producing something very efficiently if the consumer will not buy it.
But when one gets down to a State monopoly of this kind, I think it will be common ground on both sides of the House that we really require the greatest safeguards for the consumer which we can reasonably have. Of course, it is quite true that the consumer has the safeguard of being a voter, but if he should belong to that part of the population which is no better than a "tinker's cuss," perhaps he would not be looked after by the Corporation. His safeguard as a voter is rather a remote safeguard, especially if he belongs to a party to which the present Government do not adhere.
It should be common ground to try to protect the consumer as much as we can. Although I must say that consumers' councils are worth something—it would be ungenerous not to say that—I do not think they are worth nearly enough in the contest between the interests of the consumers and those of the State-owned monopolies. They will largely be councils which will listen to complaints after the damage has been done, and will try, perhaps, to undo some of that damage for the future.
But I suggest with great seriousness that what is required here is the consumer's point of view at the moment when policy is being made. Nobody would qualify more rapidly than the Parliamentary Secretary, with his wide experiences of these matters, for a place on the board under the Amendment he has just rejected, and I think he would agree that in all matters concerning the policy of production, the consumer interest must come in at the point where the policy is made. The object of this Amendment is to secure that out of the possible eleven people who are appointed to the Corporation, at least one should be appointed as a representative of the consumer's interest.
5.45 p.m.
It is immaterial to me whether the man who represents the consumer's interests happens to be a shipbuilder or a bridge builder, but I think it is most desirable to bring specifically into the Corporation at the policy level—if I may use Civil Service jargon—somebody who has particular regard to the interests of consumers. That is very necessary in private enterprise companies, and that is why there are often on the boards of steel producing companies those who are less experienced in the production of iron and steel and more experienced in its consumption than others. I do not know why hon. Members opposite should think it very odd that a shipowner should be on a board of a steel company. I think it is a very sensible thing to do, although it seems to be the subject of some sneers from below the Gangway. However, I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary does not subscribe to those views.
The real point of this Amendment is that the consumer should come in at the policy level and should start looking after the stable before the horse is stolen. I


very much hope that the Government will accept this Amendment. It cannot possibly do them any harm; it is only one person out of eleven whom we ask the Minister to choose as the special representative of the consumer interest. It is characteristic of hon. Members opposite, and not something which I applaud myself, to imagine that it is always the consumers who have to be protected. Nearly all of us are both producers and consumers, but if they really believe that the consumer has to have slightly the better of the deal—which I believe myself—then they ought to show it in this very practical way.
I do not think that the questions which are raised by this second Amendment are as wide as those raised by the first, partly because the numbers are much smaller and partly because we are here talking, not as we were on the first Amendment about the qualifications of the people, their skill and experience, but about somebody to represent the consumer's interest. I suggest, if it is not mere lip service which we hear daily about the consumer having to suffer, that this is a perfectly safe Amendment. I do not want to bring the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) to his feet on this occasion, because I am not arguing the same point. I merely say that it would improve the Bill very greatly to have a consumer represented at the policy level.

Mr. Erroll: I can hardly think that any consumer of steel in the future will have been cheered by what the Parliamentary Secretary has just said. He is not prepared to say whether there will be a representative of consumers' interests on the Corporation or not, nor is he prepared to say how the interests of consumers are to be safeguarded, except that he made some references to a Consumers' Council. We all know that consumers' councils have been a conspicuous failure under all the other nationalisation Measures of the present Government, so that to suggest that the Consumers' Council is going to take care of consumers' interests is to do less than justice to consumers as a whole.
The real point, of course, as my right hon. Friend has just said, is that consumers' councils can only look at matters after they have happened, and that what is required is that consumers' interests should be represented when policy is

being formed. That is largely taken care of in the case of many of the principal steel companies today because they ensure that on their boards they have individuals, connected with the interests of the consumers. Such individuals are often jeered at by hon. Members opposite because they may not have an intimate knowledge of the iron and steel industry, but hon. Members opposite entirely overlook the fact that these persons help the firms concerned to evolve a policy which will ensure their markets in the future.
We have already witnessed in the case of every nationalised undertaking—the National Coal Board and the British Electricity Authority—very serious faults arising through complete ignorance of what were the consumers' true demands. I am sure that if there had been a housewife on the Board of the British Electricity Authority, there would not have been the absurdity of the winter surcharge last winter, and that if there were a consumer on the National Coal Board, there would be much cleaner coal than there is at present. The whole trouble is, of course, that under monopoly conditions the consumer's real interests get forgotten.

Mr. Harrison: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether he thinks there should be housewives on the steel directorates to advise steel companies in regard to the household requirements that he is talking so much of?

Mr. Erroll: Certainly. That necessity arises with the companies who purchase steel to make into household requisites. It would be absurd to have a housewife upon a heavy steel company which does not supply directly to housewives. We are asking that the Steel Corporation should contain a representative of the consuming interest, that is to say of the companies that use steel products. There are very few steel companies that sell direct to housewives, whereas in the case of the other nationalised undertakings coal and electricity, a very large proportion of their sales is made directly to housewives. I think my comparison was entirely justified.
We want to know whether the interests of the consumers will be represented on the Steel Corporation. We know that the consumers have very little representation in the Post Office, for the very good reason that a consumer's repre-


sentative has no place in the Post Office hierarchy. The consumers' interest is carefully siphoned off into the body which, the Postmaster-General was candid enough to admit the other day, is practically moribund. The one thing that the nationalised corporations appear to have little regard for is an individual representing the interests of the consumer.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: This is a very interesting Debate. The Minister resists the Amendment on the ground that it is not necessary and that the consumer's interest is otherwise protected and provided for in the Bill. The argument in favour of the Amendment is that the consumer's interest is not adequately protected and that there should be full protection. This is the vital difference between private enterprise and Socialism. Under free enterprise there would be no argument about the consumer's interest. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members have cheered too soon. There would be no talk about protecting the consumer's interest because the consumer would determine production, the allocation of materials and the whole form of the industry. We have not had free enterprise in the steel industry for the last 20 or 30 years. We have had interventionism, which is a totally different thing.
Under Socialism, the consumer will have no place except the position which the Government are trying to give him. The consumer is completely displaced. The nationalised board will thus have no criterion for production, or for profit, or for determining whether the allocation of materials is properly made. The Government have to set up a board to provide an arbitrary criterion, in which there will be a proper struggle to provide protection for the consumer, who ought never to require protection. The desires and wishes of the consumer are the real test of the economic system, but they have been displaced. It is part of the gravity of the Bill that we should have to struggle for some sort of recognition for the consumer.

Mr. Maclay: The Parliamentary Secretary has made me realise that the idea I had developed about the type of man who answered a Gallup poll questionnaire with the

words "Don't know," was quite wrong. I always imagined a weak vacillating little man who just answered sadly "Don't know." The Parliamentary Secretary does not answer to that description but yet he said "Don't know." I assumed that he would reply with his usual decisive energy that no board could possibly be complete without a consumer on it. I am sure he got up intending to reply in that way, but changed his mind on the ground that discretion was the better part of valour as his Minister was temporarily not there.
I cannot conceive the Corporation being complete without somebody of the kind described in the Amendment. If that is so, then the Amendment should be written into the Bill. Parliament is setting up the Corporation, and Parliament ought to lay down some guidance as to the kind of persons who are to be on the board. We should lay it down that the consumers' interest and knowledge must be properly represented. We cannot possibly have proper policy-making unless the Corporation contains people who understand the consumer problem. It is essential that the whole consumer knowledge should be adequately represented in a policy-making body, as tends to happen in private boards which contemplate operations of the scale to be undertaken by the iron and steel board.
I saw the Minister looking at me in connection with the question of the ability of the consumer to protect himself because of a remark of mine at another stage of the Bill, when I hinted that at a certain point of the trade cycle in the sellers' market, it was possible for certain producers to exercise favouritism about where their products went. Under free enterprise that tendency corrects itself straight away with astonishing rapidity, but under the Socialist system it will not do so. As the sellers' market comes to full flexibility, what happens can influence very strongly the interests of the consumer, who usually gets his own way. No consumers' council set up formally, in the way that is done in the Bill, can achieve that selectivity.
I will concede for the purpose of the argument that there might quite well be short spells of the ordinary trade cycle, as no one will convince me that a Socialist Government, or any other Government, will succeed in abolishing the


trade cycle altogether. We might flatten it out a bit but it will never be abolished. The trouble with the proposed iron and steel organisation is that it is under the direction of the Government on certain matters at all stages of the trade cycle, and that the correctives of the market place cannot apply. That is why it becomes imperative that the consumer should come on to the Corporation. Somebody should be there to look after the consumers' interests, to make certain that that type of knowledge is in policy-making from its very earliest stage.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I would not allow that argument to pass without saying a word or two about it. As a Marxist, I have never heard anything to equal what was said by the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay). The idea that under private enterprise the consumer has some power of direction or determination is nonsense, unless one defines the consumer of whom one is thinking.
We had private enterprise 60 years ago. My father had £1 a week. How much determination or direction had he with that? When we had private enterprise, palaces and mansions were being built all over the country but tenements and hovels were being built for the workers. What consumers were considered? What consumers determined the character of buildings? There was every kind of luxury food, but Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman could say that 13 million people were living under the nutritional standard in this country. Who was determining the course of production or distribution then? A certain set of consumers, but not the consumers. There was luxury in the West End and poverty and misery in the East End.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: It may very well be—I am not denying it—that there was suffering in it, but the fact is that up to 1880, the standard of living in this country went up three times. Free enterprise made that possible.

Mr. Gallacher: I still say that in 1906 or thereabouts, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, after making a real study of the situation, declared that 13 million people in this country were living under the nutritional standards.

Mr. S. Silverman: That was one out of every three.

Mr. Gallacher: They had little to do with determining production. Reference has been made to the Coal Board and complaints by housewives. The housewives are the small individual consumers. The complaints of dirty coal come not from the big industries but from the housewives. We can always rely upon a national board, like a board of directors, to look after the big fellows. There is never any trouble about that. The big steel consumers will be well looked after. The people who will not be well looked after, whether it is the Coal Board, the Railway Board or the Steel Board, are the people who matter, the workers who produce the steel, and they are the people who should be on the board. I would not have one of the big steel consumers on the board. Every member of the board should be a member of the working class drawn from the industry. That is how we should get results.

Sir P. Hannon: I am associated with the steel industry in a modest way. The last thing we in the steel industry would think of doing would be to treat people in the way described by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). The object of the industry today is to raise the standard living of everybody associated with it.
In this matter I am surprised at the Minister. Throughout my association and pleasant companionship with the right hon. Gentleman I have always regarded him as a man of profound common sense. Yet he now refuses to agree to a proposal for a representative of the great consuming industry of iron and steel upon his Corporation. I am concerned very much with the industry in the Midlands. I am president of the National Union of Manufacturers, whose members represent a very large consumption of steel, and I am also associated with various private enterprises in which steel consumption is of profound importance to success. I am, therefore, astonished that the right hon. Gentleman cannot find room for one representative for the consumers of steel on the Corporation.
The nationalisation of steel is in a different category from all the other efforts at nationalisation, because it touches practically every industry in the


land. In the City of Birmingham and the Midlands we have nearly 1,570 different classes of enterprise, and nearly every one has to depend to a greater or lesser degree upon steel. Who is to represent the consumers in the provision of steel and to protect their interests if the Corporation has no representative charged with that responsibility? His Majesty's Ministers, including the right hon. Gentleman, make continuous appeals to our manufacturers to intensify, stimulate and expand our export trade. There is nothing so immediately necessary to the expansion of exports as steel. Yet the Minister denies the right of the people who consume steel in the production of these articles in a competitive world to have representation on the Corporation, and quality. Why do the Government That seems the abnegation of statesmanship.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do something about this matter before the Bill passes from the control of this House and that common sense will prevail. This Amendment is far more important to industry in this country than the one which has just been rejected. The distribution and employment of steel in the thousands of trades in this country which depend for their vitality on the supply of steel, is of far more consequence from the point of view of representation on the Corporation than the productivity side. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will allow the Amendment to be made and thus give us a gleam of that statesmanship to which we have looked forward.

Mr. Harrison: I would remind the Opposition that more steel is used in the ancillary undertakings attached to the Steel Corporation than in any other parts of our industrial life at present. Therefore, these people in the industry have a far more intimate knowledge of consumer needs than almost any other industry. That completely answers the question raised on the Amendment.

Mr. David Eccles: The hon. Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Harrison) seems to have given the case away. It is precisely because the people associated with the board are also consumers of steel in the ancillaries, that it is so very important to protect the private companies who are in competition

with the publicly owned companies under the board.

Mr. Attewell: The Amendment does not say that.

Mr. Eccles: The Amendment seeks to give some representation of consumers' interests on the board. The first intervention of the hon. Member for East Nottingham was an interesting one. He said that there was no consumer representation in the old days, why should there be now. The hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) answered that very well when he said that under private conditions the consumer had a chance. He might not have had it in price for some time, but he certainly had it in service and quality. Why do the Government wish to preserve firms like Stewarts and Lloyds and others with their own names? Simply because those names and the identity of those firms have been an attraction to consumers, and the Government know that if it is simply described as "British steel" we shall not get so many buyers.
The real point is this, do we or do we not injure the consumer interest by nationalising an industry? Quite obviously we do. The greater the concentration of an industry in one hand, the weaker the power of the consumer over that industry to get produced the things he wants. In this Bill has enough been done to replace the free play of the market which has been taken away from the consumer? We say that the Consumers' Council is not enough and, therefore, we think that something should be done to bring the consumer on to the board.
Curiously enough, we are not the only people who realise that nationalisation is hitting the consumer hard. I think I am right in saying that in "Labour believes in Britain" there is a section which starts "A Square Deal for the Consumer." That shows that the party opposite realise that the consumer is not getting a fair deal under nationalisation. Why then are we refused one member on the board of the nationalised industry which is to be responsible for the widest range of products? It goes right down to bedsteads and kitchen utensils. I do not know anything about the father of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), but I am sure his mother used to choose carefully which frying pan or


which other household article she bought that contained iron or steel.

Mr. Gallacher: Would the hon. Gentleman try to get into his head an idea of what a housewife with seven children could buy on £1 per week?

Mr. Eccles: The less money the housewife has, the more she wants value for that money.

Mr. Attewell: I am trying to follow the argument and I wish that the hon. Member would read the Amendment. It says "for industrial purposes." Frying pans for the housewife are not for industrial purposes.

Mr. Eccles: It is for industrial purposes; for the manufacture of all that wide range of goods called household goods. I say that in future the woman who has only £1 a week will get much worse value for her money than she did before. Therefore if the Amendment is not accepted it seems to me to make nonsense of that section of "Labour believes in Britain" which talks about a square deal for the consumer. I do not believe for one moment that the Labour Party is sincere in its policy statement. When I read it I thought it was nonsense; now I have the proof, and if the Minister rejects this Amendment we shall know what to say about it.

Mr. John Hynd: The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) has given the game away. It is obvious to most of us on this side of the House that no substantial argument has yet been propounded by the other side in favour of this Amendment. The hon. Member referred to the wide range of consumer goods produced from iron and steel. That is precisely what makes this Amendment meaningless. If the hon. Member will read the Amendment he will find that it says:
at least one person appearing to the Minister to have had wide experience as a consumer of iron and steel for industrial purposes.
One person could not represent that vast range of consumption of iron and steel; he could not at the same time represent the shipping interests, the bicycle producing interests or the producers of the pots and pans about which we have heard so much.
The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) in speaking on this

Amendment made some play with the fact that under private enterprise the iron and steel concerns often had a representative of the shipping interests on their boards; indeed, he tried to give that as an indication of how much they were concerned with the consuming interest. Were the representatives of the shipping companies on the boards of the iron and steel companies because the latter invited them to come along and give the benefit of their advice on behalf of the consumers, or because they, as shipping interests, had a financial interest in that steel concern and were there not to look after the interests of the broad mass of consumers but of their company? One knows that it was a link-up of the financial interests, and the shipping concern was there to represent the direct interests of shipping consumers of steel against the other consumer interests. Quite obviously, if one, two or three members were there to represent the consumer interests with which they were connected, this would be a dangerous addition to the Bill.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: The hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) has tried to create a dichotomy between financial and consumer interests. There is a fallacy in his argument which is worth pointing out. It is the experience of mankind that a man devotes himself far more intently to an enterprise in which he is risking his own money—

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member has become a Tory.

Mr. Thomas: I shall have something to say to the hon. Gentleman in a moment but I leave him while I deal with his hon. Friend. That is one of the great virtues of free enterprise, and I have been forced to the conclusion that Socialism will not succeed because it does not give an adequate measure of personal responsibility to those who participate in it. The members of public boards do not feel the same direct interest in the success of their undertaking as do the directors of privately-owned concerns and the men who have worked up their business from the bottom—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Gentleman is getting very wide of the Amendment now before the House.

Mr. Thomas: I am trying to reply to the argument of the hon. Gentleman, but I think I have given an adequate indication of the answer.

Mr. J. Hynd: Is not the hon. Gentleman giving me my argument that the consumer representative, assuming he comes from a shipping concern and has a direct financial interest in it, represents only that financial interest, and will not represent the broad mass of consumers?

Mr. Thomas: I am sure I am in Order in replying to that argument, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has reminded me of what he said. There is really only one consumer interest, and that is to get steel of the best quality at the cheapest price. That applies to all consumers of steel. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to point out the great variety of steel products, and superficially there might appear to be some cogency in his argument, but it is not so really, because the interest of shipbuilders is the same as the interest of frying-pan manufacturers, to get steel of good quality at low prices.
This is one of the main points that will emerge from our Debate and it is worth while giving some attention to it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have argued for nationalisation in the past, and I argued with them, on the ground that it would provide products of better quality at a cheaper price than under private enterprise. I think they were sincere in that argument. If I may give an example, no less a person than the Foreign Secretary so argued at the last General Election in the case of the coal industry, and most of us sincerely believed that nationalisation would result in a better deal for the consumer.
In practice that has not proved to be the case. The opposite has proved to be true, and possibly under pressure from groups of producers, nationalisation has been consistently against the interests of the consumer. To give a proof of that, let me refer to an interesting speech made last week at the annual meeting of the Finance Corporation for Industry by Lord Bruce who pointed out how it was becoming extremely difficult to find any worth while enterprises in which to invest precisely because of the enhanced prices of the products of nationalised industries. The very great increase in the price of coal, transport, power and the other pro-

ducts of nationalised industries is bound to be of very great concern because, even if it is true that so far only 20 per cent. of industry has been nationalised, the products of these industries are essential to the whole of the remaining sector of private enterprise. Therefore, the question of the position of the consumer of steel is of the utmost importance.
In the light of the experience of the past few years I have been forced to the conclusion—the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) needed no convincing, because he was there already—that there is no adequate protection for the consumer except competititive enterprise. Only when the consumer has an alternative source of supply will he get real protection. But we must do the best we can in the Bill, and this proposal of their Lordships to have on the board a person who will be able to speak on behalf of consumers of iron and steel is better than having nothing at all, or better than the Consumers' Council which it is proposed to set up and whose effectiveness is bound to be illusory.
Let me turn to the argument of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). It might appear to him convincing that because his father had only £1 a week a long time ago—obviously, it must have been a long time ago for an industrial worker to have had only £1 a week—he had no real consumer's choice. What he forgets—

Mr. Gallacher: I said 60 years ago. After an hon. Member opposite had said that we did not have private enterprise during the past 20 years I gave 60 years as a time when we did have private enterprise. My argument is that my father and millions like him, with their £1 a week, had really no power whatever of determining or directing the course of production and distribution.

Mr. Thomas: The date is irrelevant. In his intervention, however, the hon. Member has now interpolated some words which are essential for my argument. He has said, not only his own father but millions like him. The argument of the hon. Member is fallacious. It is fallacious precisely because there were millions of men like the hon. Member's father, and like my own father. Individually they may have had only small incomes but collectively they were more important than any other persons.

Mr. Gallacher: Some got shoddy things and the others got silk.

Mr. Thomas: I pick up what was so truly said by the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen. All through this period, and, indeed, at least from the end of the Middle Ages, there was a steady and spectacular increase in the standard of living of the working classes; but that was a direct result of the system of private enterprise. The hon. Member must face the facts. There was a steady decline, for example, in the cost of food all through the 19th century.

Mr. Gallacher: Why was it that my father and millions like him had to get shoddy clothing, live in slum houses and get "ham ends" when all the others got the best of everything? How can it be said that they had any power for directing the course of production and distribution?

Mr. Thomas: Because the hon. Gentleman's father was living in better conditions than his grandfather lived in, and his father's son is living in better conditions than his father was. There has been a steady and most spectacular improvement all through. The condition which the hon. Member described has, in fact, been the condition of the great mass of mankind of all ages, and even now is the condition of the great masses of mankind in Asia and in Russia.
It is because of private enterprise and precisely because of its inequalities that the standard of living has continued to rise the whole time. We can still see the process developing. In my own lifetime I have seen the motor car become very common, the radio has become a household necessity, television is spreading into large numbers of homes, and today washing machines are ceasing to be the perquisite of a few luxury homes and are to be found in homes all over the country. It is consumer's choice that has made this process possible. That has been the mainspring of our economic system. That mainspring, unfortunately, is now being broken by the actions of the Government.
I should like to restore consumers' choice to its rightful rôle. The Government, I have discovered, do not believe in it. One of their Members—the Economic Secretary to the Treasury—in a book with a foreword by the Prime Minister, has frankly said that in matters

of health and in nutrition, as in education, the gentleman in Whitehall really knows best. That is the attitude of hon. Members opposite, who will tell us also that in the case of steel the gentleman in Whitehall really does know best. We do not believe that.
What we should like to do is to give the consumer the only adequate protection that is possible, and that is the kind which comes from a competitive enterprise. But we cannot achieve that under the Bill; it will be left to the General Election to determine that issue. For today, we must do the best we can, and that is to try to ensure that on the Corporation there is at least one member who can speak up for the consumer.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: For some time past private enterprise, large and small, has found it convenient to have on its boards a representative of the consumer. I agree that in some cases this policy has been carried too far towards the direction of a vertical trust—I think it was a vertical trust which was in the mind of the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) just now. In that case abuse does creep in; but that is by no means the general practice. There are firms like Richard Thomas, for example, who have on their boards of directors representatives of quite important firms which they do not control in any way; for example, Sir Robert Barlow, who is Chairman of The Metal Box Company, and Sir Andrew Agnew, who is Managing Director of the Shell Transport and Trading Company, Ltd. There is no financial link or sign of a vertical trust there. It is merely that, for a multiplicity of reasons, it is convenient to have on the board of a great manufacturing concern representatives of consumers of its products.

Mr. J. Hynd: Surely, in the case the hon. Member has quoted, those people are bulk consumers of the firm's products and, therefore, it is in the interest of that particular firm to have those special consumers represented on the board. They represent no one more than their own firms.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: That does not destroy the principle. Obviously, a whole multiplicity of consumers could not be represented on a board of 10 or 12 people, and we are not asking for that now. We are asking in the Cor-


poration for a representative of the consumer. Presumably, the man chosen would be one of the most prominent men in the country with great experience of firms which are important consumers of iron and steel.
We have not yet at this stage in the House debated the Consumers' Council generally. I think, however, that everybody is agreed that so far these bodies have been fairly ineffective. They do not appear yet to operate at all with gas and electricity, and so far as coal is concerned the industrial Consumers' Council has never yet made its voice effective in the production of coal. The price of coal to the consumer went up by five shillings a ton and afterwards jumped by another four shillings a ton, and at no stage was the industrial Consumers' Council consulted.
The point I am trying to make is that by setting up consumers' councils a lot of heavy artillery is brought to bear at a late stage, and conditions are set up for a long-range war between the Corporation—whatever it is, in coal, gas or electricity—and the Consumers' Council. The operations are far too extended and the time factor is too great. I regard the Amendment as designed to put an outpost, a representative of the Consumers' Council, on the Corporation in order to smooth out the difficulties and disputes before they begin to arise.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite are always saying that we must iron out booms and slumps, stresses and strains. Here is an admirable chance to do so. Suppose that the Steel Corporation is going to raise the prices of steel. How much better it would be that in the early stages of the argument a representative of the consumer should be there on the Corporation to thrash out differences rather than that the board should decide upon policy, raise prices and then stage a gigantic battle which would appear, in the public and in the Press, to be a battle between the Corporation and the Consumers' Council. Surely that is very much better.
6.30 p.m.
For all that it is desirable to spend a great deal of social capital on the iron and steel world, the Iron and Steel Corporation might carry that to undue lengths so that in time the prices of iron and steel are raised beyond the limit the consumer

is able to pay. There might be a war between the Iron and Steel Corporation and the Consumers' Council which could be averted in the first instance if there were a consumers' representative on the board. He could say, "It is very nice to have a lot of new social capital installed at the great works being built, but I am beginning to fear that prices will rise unduly and that in due course my friends in the consumer side of the industry will suffer." Those instances are of the kind to warrant an Amendment of this sort being inserted and I hope at this late stage the Minister will agree to it.

Mr. Peter Roberts: I hope the Minister has listened very carefully to my noble Friend the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). When the Parliamentary Secretary opened this Debate he said that the principles were the same as in the Amendment we had before us this afternoon. If the Minister has listened to what my hon. Friend has said, he will realise that underlying this Amendment are very different principles from those we discussed earlier because the basis of the principles in the earlier discussion was accepted by both sides namely, that in a production industry we should have on the board people knowing the production. Now we are discussing whether in a production industry we should have someone on the board representing consumers' interests. For the Parliamentary Secretary to say that the arguments are the same, is nonsense.
We have been watching the results of nationalisation over the years and we on this side of the House, and I think the majority of the people are convinced that consumers do not get proper protection under nationalisation. Later we shall be dealing with the Consumers' Council and I do not propose to go into that matter in detail now. In Clause 6, as the Minister knows, Consumers' Councils so far as the publicly owned companies are concerned, has practically no sanctions whatever. We are convinced that it is necessary to tighten up the protection of consumers' interests and for that reason we are going into a new avenue in supporting an Amendment to provide for a consumers' representative on the board. After listening to the arguments this afternoon, the Minister must realise that this is a new approach to the problem.
In Sheffield in the last week I have had three examples of what is happening


to consumers. First, there is the case of someone who has been waiting for a telephone for three years and has now been told by the Postmaster-General that he must wait another three years. The second example concerns the coal industry, in which a firm has been complaining about the amount of water in the slack, which has gone up to 16 per cent., for which the National Coal Board expect to be paid and which, no doubt, is going into the coal target figure. That is not a small concern. An hon. Member said that large concerns looked after themselves, but this concern deals with 30,000 tons of coal a week. It will be seen that the Coal Board is making a good thing out of selling water to the consumer.
The third example was of someone wanting to get a machine from Manchester to Sheffield. He applied to the national haulage contractor and was told that he must pay £17 10s. and provide loading. By private enterprise the same job was done for £5. It is essential for the Government to realise that under nationalisation the consumer does not get better protection. That is why we are trying to strengthen the board by putting a consumer on it.
I have been making inquiries in the City of Sheffield, which makes a great deal of the steel of this country. There are a great many firms which depend for their livelihood on steel. They are small concerns and do not come under the provisions of this Measure, but they are all consumers of steel. Among these industrial consumers in Sheffield there is a great deal of disquiet, not only among the managements, but among the operatives, because they see the hammer of nationalisation coming down in the middle of their home town. I assure the Minister that there is a great deal of disquiet among the smaller concerns because, whatever hon. Members say, whereas previously those people could change their suppliers if they wished and go from one supplier to another if they did not get proper service, under this Measure they will come under the one monopoly of the State. No matter what name we call it, it will be under the direction of the Minister and the board.
I ask the Minister to reconsider this. It is not the same principle as we discussed earlier, but it is an attempt to protect the consumer as opposed to the

powers of the producer. If the Minister has listened to the arguments, he must be convinced that there is a great deal in what we have said. If he is not prepared to accept the Amendment, would he be prepared to give an undertaking that there shall be a consumer on the board? That would go some way to meet us. The road to disaster is before us, but it may prevent us reaching the slippery slope for a short time. I ask for that assurance.

Mr. Nigel Birch: I wish to reinforce the last point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ecclesall (Mr. P. Roberts). When my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) asked the Parliamentary Secretary, after his rather inadequate-speech, whether he meant to put a consumers' representative on the board, his answer was "Don't know"—the old Gallup poll answer. It may be that the answer is "Won't say." Before we leave the Amendment we are entitled to know what the answer is.

Mr. J. Jones: The Parliamentary Secretary did not say, "Don't know." What the Parliamentary Secretary said, in answer to the request, was that he was not prepared to commit himself at the moment that one should be on the board, or that one should not.

Mr. Birch: I have never had the honour of representing Gallup polls on the doorstep, but I take it that if one asks someone if he is worried about the cost of living or not and he is not prepared to say, one puts him down as "Don't know." I think I have classified the hon. Gentleman. Possibly the Minister may know and, if he does know, he should tell us the answer. We are entitled to an answer on whether he intends to put a consumer on the board or not.
The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) was talking of silk and shoddy and of the kind of consumers' choice his father had. How do hon. Members opposite think that people with small incomes will be helped by nationalisation, inefficient production and high prices? It is very curious, but no one can be helped unless wages go up in nationalised industries. The railwaymen may have something to say about that. I do not want to enlarge on it. It does not appear that they get particularly good wages, and everyone else, supposing they do not get


good wages, in fact suffers. It is the people with the low incomes who suffer more than the people with the high incomes. Consumers' choice does matter, and I should think that it would matter more to a person with a small income than to a person with a large income.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that the arguments on this Amendment were the same as the arguments on the first Amendment. Surely that is wholly wrong. The first issue was whether we should have technicians, people with experience, on the board. This is quite a different thing. This is a question of whether we can do anything whatsoever to protect the consumers by having a consumers' representative upon the board. I think that the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) gave away the weak position of the unfortunate consumer by saying that a consumers' representative could not represent all the consumers. Nothing could be more true, but under the old system, as the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) pointed out, they had their say.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite are bemused about the old slogan of production for use and not profit. But why does anyone ever make a profit? Surely because he produces things which other people want to use, at prices which they are prepared to pay. That situation no longer applies under this Bill. If anyone is to carry on business at all, anyone who is a consumer, he has to take exactly what he is given at the price at which he is given it. He has no choice of any sort, and if hon. Members think, because this is a Government body, that automatically gives the consumer protection, all I can say is that Lord Ammon's adjective should also be applied to that.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I was astonished to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that the arguments applied to the other Amendment applied equally to this one. I can only think that he was so anxious to get on with the Bill that he was not prepared to support arguments which can be applied to this particular Amendment. I wish to refer to the sort of individual whom we on this side of the House would like to see added to the Corporation. Let us take a hypothetical case. We know that the Corporation are charged, taking

one year with another, with making both ends meet. Suppose, as is very likely, they fail, and therefore they have to do something about it; what is likely to follow. They would say, "In order to make ends meet we must raise our steel prices"—let us say, by 10 per cent.—and they proceed to try that out.
What would be the effect of raising the price of say, steel sections by 10 per cent.? The consumers' representative would say, "Wait a minute. If you start to raise prices by 10 per cent. it will have a very different effect on the shipbuilding industry from that which it has on the structural industry. One can bear it and the other cannot. The shipbuilding figures are such that they cannot stand any increase in costs." That is the sort of rôle which, as I see it, this individual would play. He is not a representative, as the right hon. Gentleman tried to make out, of any particular section of consumers. He is an expert upon consumer demand and the effect upon consumer demand of any particular action which the Corporation may take.
What is abundantly clear is that the sales management side of nationalised industry scarcely exists. If an industrialist is asked which is one of the most important aspects of industrialism, he will say that it is the sales management side. Those men go out and assess the public need; they assess the quantity and price and the subsequent demand which will arise for articles at a certain price and of a certain quality. Then they get the production people to produce at that price and in that quality. That does not exist at the present time.
Take the General Post Office, for example. There have been complaints for months on end about its unsatisfactory nature, but does a sales manager from the General Post Office ask us whether, if the price of postage were reduced to 2d., we would post more letters? Not a bit of it. The consumer has to take it or leave it. As I see it, the consumers' representative would organise the sales management side and be able to advise the Corporation on the effect of a reduction in price here or an increase in price there. That is quite different from the rôle visualised by the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, I add my plea to the Government to make this appointment.

6.45 p.m

Mr. G. R. Strauss: A number of points have been raised during this very interesting Debate to which I would like to reply. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is perfectly right when he says that the principle raised in this Amendment is identical with the principle raised in the last Amendment, which I suggest is this. The Bill has laid down general categories from which persons shall be appointed to the Corporation. Are we to go on and say that there should be three men representing one section of the industry, and one man representing another; thus inevitably meeting a further demand that somebody should represent the trade union section of the industry and somebody else—as was pressed upon us during the Committee stage—to represent the scientists, and so on; until the total make-up of the Corporation is laid down and rigidly set out in the Statute? That is the principle which is raised in this Amendment and which was raised in the last one, and it is a principle with which I ask this House to disagree, because it is a bad one and not the way we should proceed.

Mr. Molson: In the Clause as drafted by the Government, in addition to this capacity for production, there is a special provision for those with experience of the organisation of workers. There is given an opportunity for the representation of the trade unionists, with a natural tendency to raise wages and costs. Would it not, therefore, be quite proper for the consumers also to be represented?

Mr. Strauss: Certainly, subsection (2) of Clause 1 lays down the types of people who should be on the Corporation. In the Amendment it is suggested that, within those general categories, we should lay down exactly what representatives of what sections of the industry there should be, and in what numbers.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: Not numbers.

Mr. Strauss: It is suggested that there should be three people who have experience in the iron and steel industry. The Amendment refers to somebody who has had experience as a consumer, but all the arguments have been that it should be somebody who should represent the consumers. If that principle is accepted, we shall inevitably get other classes of

people who want representation on the Corporation. We have set our face against a representative Corporation from the very beginning. I think there was general agreement in the Committee, at any rate over a large section of it, that the Corporation should be non-functional and non-representative; that it should be a body of men working together, not representing any particular interests and therefore being in frequent conflict, but working together harmoniously for the benefit of the iron and steel industry and the consumers in that industry.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The right hon. Gentleman is making a great point, as I understand it, that in his view—which I understand is disputed by my hon. Friends—there was general agreement in the Committee on this or that point. We are now in the House of Commons. Does it matter what the Committee agreed? There are many of us here who were not members of the Committee, and what we have to decide now is what the House of Commons wants, and not what the Committee may or may not have wanted.

Mr. Strauss: Of course, but I thought that it would be of interest to the House to know that in the Committee, where we discussed this Bill for 36 Sittings, there was fairly general agreement on the undesirability of having a functional Corporation or a representative Corporation. I merely repeat that fact to the House; I think that it supports me in the line I am taking.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: I am trying to follow the Minister's argument. Would he look at the Amendment and say how the person proposed in it would be more functional in the case of consumers than the person who has had experience of "the organisation of workers" would be functional in the case of workers. In neither case is the word "representation" used.

Mr. Strauss: If the hon. Member has listened to the speeches made by practically every hon. Member who supports this Amendment—

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have listened to every one.

Mr. Strauss: —he will remember that they used some phrase to the effect that it is essential to have on the Corporation a representative of consumers to


look after their interests, to see that prices are not raised against consumers, etc. I must take into account the arguments used by hon. Gentlemen opposite in supporting the Amendment. I take it that that is what they seek in supporting the Amendment.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Does the Minister realise that Clause 1 (2) as drafted would preclude him from appointing anyone who had experience of consumer matters unless he also had experience under one of the other heads?

Mr. Strauss: Nothing of the sort. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary was perfectly right when in answer to the question which he was asked once or twice about whether there would be anybody on the Corporation who had experience as a consumer, he said that it is impossible at this stage to say. It is very probable, I put it no higher, that among the people who have had experience of the iron and steel industry will be someone who has had experience as a consumer of some kind or type of iron or steel. I refuse to bind myself at this stage by suggesting that there will be anybody who could be regarded as a representative of consumers because I believe very firmly that in principle we should not have representative corporations, bodies or commissions in control of these great industries. Therefore, my answer to the question about whether there will be a representative of consumers on the Corporation is definitely "No," but there will be someone on it who has had experience as a consumer of iron and steel.

Mr. Lyttelton: Will the Minister define what he means by non-representative or non-functional? I do not mean someone who will represent consumers but someone who will represent their point of view. The Minister says that the Standing Committee decided on a non-functional Corporation. It is true that in the Standing Committee the Government changed their grounds very much under criticism but the Committee stage left me, and I think most of my hon. Friends, somewhat at sea as to what a non-functional Corporation and non-representative people sitting in vacuo meant.

Mr. Strauss: I think that there is general understanding of what a non-functional board is and what a non-representative board is. I do not think that we need to go into definitions on this occasion; we have plenty of work to do. It was understood in the Committee, as it is in this House, and as I am sure it is generally understood that if there are to be representatives of various interests sitting on the Corporation, it will become a very different body from the one which we have in mind. The Corporation will not consist of representatives but of people working with one purpose only, not representing any special interest but with the sole purpose of promoting the well-being of the iron and steel industry and of the consumers of the products of that industry.
I wish to make the point that those who have been arguing in favour of a consumers' representative on this Corporation apparently do not realise that for the first time, as a result of this Measure, the consumer will have a status. He will be able to express his views, not merely in print, with no effect, or through the voice of the chairman at a directors' meeting. For the first time he will be able to express his views and have his requirements recognised, considered, and, if reasonable, implemented.
Over and over again in the past there have been loud and serious complaints from the shipping and motor car industries, and many other industries, about the iron and steel industry. It was alleged—I do not intend to go into the merits of the matter—that the industry was not serving its consumers properly. Complaints were made, they may have been expressed in newspapers, but they had no effect whatever. No statutory result flowed from those protests because this House was debarred and Ministers were debarred from taking any action and from remedying such deficiencies as existed. Those complaints merely continued.
Here for the first time, consumers are to have a Consumers' Council on which they will sit as of right. They are to be able through this Council to make representations and suggestions, which will come to this House, where they can be considered; for the first time they can be effectively considered in Parliament. Previously no one has been responsible for doing anything. The representations


from the Council can be put into effect by order of the Minister of Supply, who can be questioned about why he has or has not made some change which consumers have asked for. For the first time consumers are in a very strong position, indeed in a better position than ever before. That point should be appreciated. This House, the Minister and the Consumers' Council will effectively look after the interests of consumers better than they have ever been looked after before.
My final point, which is important, is that hon. Members opposite do not seem to realise that the Corporation is being set up to serve the national interest, and very high if not the highest, amongst national interests is the consumers' interest. The very purpose of the Corporation is to attempt by bringing about greater improvements, efficiency and rationalisation and by lowering prices and a whole host of other measures, to serve the consumer better than he has ever been served before. That is why we are setting up the Corporation. That is the duty which this House is putting on the Corporation. To suggest that on top of that one out of the six or 10 people on the Corporation must be a consumers' representative—there is to be no other representative apparently on this Corporation—is quite ridiculous when the whole purpose of all the six or 10 persons will be to serve the consumers.
For those reasons, and because of the full provision made in the Bill to protect the consumer if he should feel that under this Bill his interests are not being fully looked after—and I am confident myself that he will feel that his interests are better looked after than ever before—I suggest that we disagree with the Lords proposal that there should be a specific consumers' representative on this Corporation.

Mr. H. Macmillan: If I thought that there was any real danger of this Bill becoming operative, and of this board of unlucky persons being charged with these immense and vast duties upon a non-functional, non-representative basis, I should take a very gloomy view of our future. Having heard the speech which the Minister has just made, I am bound to say that it is clear that he also thinks that this matter will be decided in another place, by which I mean the

verdict of the people. The speech he has made has had little reference either to the discussion in the other Chamber, the words of the Amendment or the discussion here. It was a speech clearly directed more to the hustings than to the House of Commons.
The Minister gave us what I thought was a very inaccurate picture of the power of the consumers to make their feelings and views felt over the last period of years. It is true that, as the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) said, there has been a great change in the character of the relationship of the steel industry to its consumers over a period, and that in the period that followed the great slump after the 1914–18 war, the reconstruction period under the protective tariffs, measures were introduced by the Government which changed the old laissez faire position. Measures were introduced and carried out throughout that period for that very purpose, and with the most powerful of all weapons in the hands of the Government—the power to give or withhold the tariff. It was the Import Duties Advisory Committee which, at the very beginning of this new phase in the development of the steel industry, enforced upon the industry certain measures of re-organisation as part of the understanding on which it advised the Government whether or not a tariff was justified.
7.0 p.m.
The Minister is wrong to say that this is a new factor for the protection of consumers. It has been operating throughout. I would say that it is operating now under the system of the Iron and Steel Board which seems to us to be carrying out with great success the function of what one might call the general control of industry without interfering with its day-to-day management.
The Debates in Committee were very long, and I hope that we shall not have to refer to them too often tonight. When the Minister recalled those Debates, I felt like saying that they were very obscure then and that they were nearly always broken up by the falling of the Guillotine. Most of the matters which we are to discuss tonight would not have been discussed at all had the Government had their way, but they are not able to


Guillotine all the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament.
The Amendment we are discussing does not refer to representatives of consumers. No such word as "representative" is used. I admit that in the speeches made in support of the Amendment, the word "representative" was used in its broadest sense—not as the elected representative or someone specifically chosen for that sole task. The word was used in the broader sense of having somebody on the board who, in the words of the Amendment which we are asked by the Government to exclude from the Bill, would have:
… had wide experience as a consumer of iron and steel for industrial purposes.
I admit that had the Clause been so drawn that there would simply be a board set up and it would be left to the Government to choose the members, there would be a great deal to be said against inserting this Amendment. The Bill might have been drawn in that way, simply to say that a board shall be set up and that we should not make any directions in the Bill. It might be argued, "Surely, you can leave it to the good sense of the Government which, whether you agree with the system or not, clearly wants to make the scheme successful." It might be argued that we should leave it to their good sense to choose these persons without any specification as to their character. There would have been a great deal to be said for that, but that is not the Clause. The Clause says that they:
… shall be appointed by the Minister from amongst persons appearing to him to be persons who have had wide experience of and shown capacity in …
Then we get a number of qualifications:
… the production of iron ore or iron or steel, industrial, commercial or financial matters, administration or the organisation of workers.
As a result of our last Division we have left out the words:
… production of iron ore or iron or steel.
They were inserted in another place. Apparently the idea that among these seven people three should be people who have had some knowledge of the industry appeared to be something so terrible that no decent man could contemplate it. I do not understand why. However,

there is still this list of people who have experience of industrial, commercial or financial matters, administration or the organisation of workers.
Yet in the argument which the right hon. Gentleman has just put forward, as he will see if he reads it in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow, he gave as a reason for not making the category more precise the fact that someone might ask for trade union representation. In the Bill he has made it precise that these people shall be drawn from amongst those who have had experience or shown capacity in the organisation of workers. Out of his own mouth he condemns himself. If he reads HANSARD tomorrow—unless the wise provision of providence or Parliamentary secretaries is able somehow to alter it—he will see that he said that this was a dangerous principle because if extended there might even be put forward a demand that there should be a special representative of trade union interests.
There are to be appointed people who have had experience of industrial, commerical or financial matters, administration—which I suppose means administration in general—and the organisation of workers. If we are to have that category of people there is a great deal to be said for specifically including people who
have had wide experience as a consumer of iron or steel for industrial purposes.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for at least giving us a rather wider range of reasons than the Parliamentary Secretary thought fit to give. While I do not feel that events will make it of great importance, because I think that this matter will be taken into a wider range for public decision, yet I should have thought that in their own interests the Government would have been wise to have accepted the Amendment. That would have shown that the Government were prepared to deal with reason with Amendments which can be of no danger to them and which cannot in any way make their system less effective or upset their main purpose. I should have thought that in such circumstances the Government would wish to have met any reasonable proposal of this kind which could be put forward, especially when it was one of the very few Amendments pressed strongly in another place.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 320; Noes, 154.

Division No. 219.]
AYES
[7.10 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Diamond, J.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)


Albu, A. H.
Dobbie, W.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Dodds, N. N.
Keenan, W.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Donovan, T.
Kenyon, C.


Alpass, J. H.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
King, E. M.


Attewell, H. C.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Dye, S.
Kinley, J.


Austin, H. Lewis
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Kirby, B. V.


Awbery, S. S.
Edelman, M.
Lang, G.


Ayles, W. H.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Lavers, S.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Bacon, Miss A.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Balfour, A.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Leonard, W.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Ewart, R.
Levy, B. W.


Barstow, P. G.
Farthing, W. J.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Barton, C.
Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Battley, J. R.
Field, Capt. W. J.
Lindgren, G. S.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Follick, M.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Bollenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Foot, M. M.
Logan, D. G.


Benson, G.
Forman, J. C.
Longden, F.


Berry, H.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Lyne, A. W.


Beswick, F.
Freeman, J. (Watford)
McAdam, W.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McAllister, G.


Binns, J.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
McEntee, V. La. T


Blenkinsop, A.
Gibbins, J.
Mack, J. D.


Blyton, W. R.
Gibson, C. W.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Boardman, H.
Gilzean, A.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)


Bottomley, A. G.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
McLeavy, F.


Bowden, H. W.
Gooch, E. G.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Goodrich, H. E.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bramall, E. A.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Grenfell, D. R.
Mann, Mrs. J.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Grey, C. F.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Grierson, E.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Brown, George (Belper)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Mayhew, C. P.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mellish, R. J.


Burden, T. W.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Messer, F.


Burke, W. A.
Gunter, R. J.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Guy, W. H.
Mikardo, Ian.


Callaghan, James
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R.


Carmichael, James
Hale, Leslie
Mitchison, G. R.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Monslow, W.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Moody, A. S.


Champion, A. J.
Hardman, D. R.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Chater, D.
Hardy, E. A.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Harrison, J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Cluse, W. S.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mort, D. L.


Coldrick, W.
Haworth, J.
Moyle, A.


Collick, P.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Nally, W.


Collindridge, F.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Collins, V. J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Cook, T. F.
Hobson, C. R.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Cooper, G.
Holman, P.
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Oldfield, W. H.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Horabin, T. L.
Oliver, G. H.


Cove, W. G.
Houghton, Douglas
Orbach, M.


Crawley, A.
Hoy, J.
Paget, R. T.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hubbard, T.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Cullen, Mrs.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Daggar, G.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'ton, W.)
Pargiter, G. A.


Daines, P.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Parker, J.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Parkin, B. T.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Pearson, A.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Peart, T. F.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Perrins, W.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jay, D. P. T.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Johnston, Douglas
Popplewell, E.


Deer, G.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Price, M. Philips


Delargy, H. J.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Pritt, D. N.




Pursey, Comdr. H.
Snow, J. W.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Randall, H. E.
Sorensen, R. W.
Weitzman, D.


Ranger, J.
Sparks, J. A.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Rankin, J.
Steele, T.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Rees-Williams, D. R.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
West, D. G.


Reeves, J.
Stokes, R. R.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Rhodes, H.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Stross, Dr. B.
Wigg, George


Robens, A.
Stubbs, A. E.
Wilkes, L.


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
Wilkins, W. A.


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Swingler, S.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Sylvester, G. O.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Rogers, G. H. R.
Symonds, A. L.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Sargood, R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Scollan, T.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Scott-Elliot, W.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Segal, Dr. S.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Willis, E.


Sharp, Granville
Timmons, J.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Titterington, M. F.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Shurmer, P.
Tolley, L.
Wise, Major F. J.


Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Woods, G. S.


Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Usborne, Henry
Wyatt, W.


Simmons, C. J.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Yates, V. F.


Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Viant, S. P.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Skinnard, F. W.
Walker, G. H.
Zilliacus, K.


Smith, C. (Colchester)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)



Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Warbey, W. N.
Mr. Hannan and


Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Watkins, T. E.
Mr. Richard Adams.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Grimston, R. V.
Mellor, Sir J.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.
Molson, A. H. E.


Astor, Hon. M.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harden, J. R. E.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Barlow, Sir J.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Morris-Jones, Sir H.


Baxter, A. B.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Bennett, Sir P.
Headlam, Lieut-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Mullan, Lt. C. H.


Birch, Nigel
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Neil, W. F. (Belfast, N.)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Bower, N.
Hollis, M. C.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Nutting, Anthony


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hope, Lord J.
Odey, G. W.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Howard, Hon. A.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Osborne, C.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hurd, A.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Butcher, H. W.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Pickthorn, K.


Carson, E.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Challen, C.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Prescott, Stanley


Channon, H.
Keeling, E. H.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Kendall, W. D.
Raikes, H. V.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Rayner, Brig. R.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Langford-Holt, J.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Davidson, Viscountess
Lindsay, M. (Solihull
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


De la Bère, R.
Linstead, H. N.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Ropner, Col. L.


Donner, P. W.
Low, A. R. W.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Drayson, G. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Drewe, C.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Smith, E. V. (Ashford)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Eccles, D. M.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Spence, H. R.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
McFarlane, C. S.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Erroll, F. J.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Studholme, H. G.


Fox, Sir G.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Sutcliffe, H.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollock)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Gammans, L. D.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thorneycroft G. E. P. (Monmouth)


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Marples, A. E.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Marsden, Capt. A.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Touche, G. C.


Granville, E. (Eye)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Turton, R. H.







Wakefield, Sir W. W
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)
York, C.


Walker-Smith, D.
Williams, C. (Torquay)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Ward, Hon. G. R.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)



Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Major Conant and Colonel Wheatley.

Question put accordingly, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 322; Noes, 160.

Division No. 220.]
AYES
[7.19 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)


Albu, A. H.
Deer, G.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Delargy, H. J.
Jay, D. P. T.


Alpass, J. H.
Diamond, J.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Dobbie, W.
Johnston, Douglas


Attewell, H. C.
Dodds, N. N.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Donovan, T.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Austin, H. Lewis
Driberg, T. E. N.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)


Awbery, S. S.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)


Ayles, W. H.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Dye, S.
Keenan, W.


Bacon, Miss A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Kenyon, C.


Balfour, A.
Edelman M.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
King, E. M.


Barstow, P. G.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E.


Barton, C.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Kinley, J.


Battley, J. R.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Kirby, B. V.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lang, G.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Ewart, R.
Lavers, S.


Benson, G.
Farthing, W. J.
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Berry, H.
Fernyhough, E.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Beswick, F.
Field, Capt. W. J.
Leonard, W.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Follick, M.
Levy, B. W.


Binns, J.
Foot, M. M.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Blenkinsop, A.
Forman, J. C.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Blyton, W. R.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Lindgren, G. S.


Boardman, H.
Freeman, J. (Watford)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Bottomley, A. G.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Logan, D. G.


Bowden, H. W.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Longden, F.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Gibbins, J.
Lyne, A. W.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Gibson, C. W.
McAdam, W.


Bramall, E. A.
Gilzean, A.
McAllister, G.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
McEntee, V. La. T.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Gooch, E. G.
Mack, J. D.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Goodrich, H. E.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Brown, George (Belper)
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
McLeavy, F.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Grenfell, D. R.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Burden, T. W.
Grey, C. F.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Burke, W. A.
Grierson, E.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Callaghan, James
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Mann, Mrs. J.


Carmichael, James
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Gunter, R. J.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Champion, A. J.
Guy, W. H.
Mayhew, C. P.


Chater, D.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mellish, R. J.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hale, Leslie
Messer, F.


Cluse, W. S.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Coldrick, W.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Mikardo, Ian.


Collick, P.
Hardman, D. R.
Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R.


Collindridge, F.
Hardy, E. A.
Mitchison, G. R.


Collins, V. J.
Harrison, J.
Monslow, W.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Moody, A. S.


Cook, T. F.
Haworth, J.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Cooper, G.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Mort, D. L.


Cove, W. G.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Moyle, A.


Crawley, A.
Hobson, C. R.
Nally, W.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Holman, P.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Cullen, Mrs.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Daggar, G.
Horabin, T. L.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Daines, P.
Houghton, Douglas
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hoy, J.
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hubbard, T.
Oldfield, W. H.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Oliver, G. H.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'ton, W.)
Orbach, M.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Paget, R. T.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)




Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Pargiter, G. A.
Simmons, C. J.
Warbey, W. N.


Parker, J.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Watkins, T. E.


Parkin, B. T.
Skinnard, F. W.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Pearson, A.
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Weitzman, D.


Peart, T. F.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Perrins, W.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
West, D. G.


Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Snow, J. W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Popplewell, E.
Sorensen, R. W.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Sparks, J. A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Price, M. Philips
Steele, T.
Wigg, George


Pritt, D. N.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Pursey, Comdr. H.
Stokes, R. R.
Wilkes, L.


Randall, H. E.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Ranger, J.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Rankin, J.
Stross, Dr. B.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Rees-Williams, D. R.
Stubbs, A. E.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Reeves, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Swingier, S.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Rhodes, H.
Sylvester, G. O.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Symonds, A. L.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Robens, A.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Willis, E.


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Rogers, G. H. R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wise, Major F. J.


Ross William (Kilmarnock)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Sargood, R.
Timmons, J.
Woods, G. S.


Scollan, T.
Titterington, M. F.
Wyatt, W.


Scott-Elliot, W.
Tolley, L.
Yates, V. F.


Segal, Dr. S.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Zilliacus, K.


Sharp, Granville
Usborne, Henry



Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shurmer, P.
Viant, S. P.
Mr. Hannan and


Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Walker, G. H.
Mr. Richard Adams.


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Wallace, G. D. (Chistehurst)





NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)


Amory, D. Heathcoat
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)


Astor, Hon. M.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


Baldwin, A. E.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.


Barlow, Sir J.
Gridley, Sir A.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Baxter, A. B.
Grimston, R. V.
Marples, A. E.


Beamish, Maj T. V. H.
Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.
Marsden, Capt. A.


Bennett, Sir P.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Birch, Nigel
Harden, J. R. E.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Mellor, Sir J.


Bower, N.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Molson, A. H. E.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Morris-Jones, Sir H.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Hollis, M. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Mullan, Lt. C. H.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hope, Lord J.
Neill, W. F. (Belfast, N.)


Butcher, H. W.
Howard, Hon. A.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Carson, E.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Nicholson, G.


Channon, H.
Hurd, A.
Nield, B. (Chester)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Hutchison, Ll.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Nutting, Anthony


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Odey, G. W.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Keeling, E. H.
Osborne, C.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Kendall, W. D.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Davidson, Viscountess
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


De la Bère, R.
Langford-Holt, J.
Pickthorn, K.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Pitman, I. J.


Donner, P. W.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Drayson, G. B.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Prescott, Stanley


Drewe, C.
Linstead, H. N.
Price-While, Lt.-Col. D.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Eccles, D. M.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Raikes, H. V.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Low, A. R. W.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Erroll, F. J.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Fox, Sir G.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
McFarlane, C. S.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Ropner, Col. L.


Gammans, L. D.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)







Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Spearman, A. C M
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Spence, H. R.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.
York, C.


Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Touche, G. C.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Strauss, Henry (English Universities)
Turton, R. H.



Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Studholme, H. G
Walker-Smith, D.
Colonel Wheatley and


Sutcliffe, H.
Ward, Hon. G. R.
Mr. Wingfield Digby.


Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Walt, Sir G. S. Harvie

New Clause "A."—(POWERS OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE CORPORATION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 18, at end insert new Clause "A."
(1) No company being a subsidiary of the Corporation shall, notwithstanding any provision of its Memorandum of Association or its charter of incorporation or other charter, carry on directly or indirectly any activities except:—

(a) activities specified in the first column of the Second Schedule to this Act;
(b) activities which that company was in fact carrying on immediately before the general date of transfer;
(c) activities which for technical reasons ought, in the opinion of the Minister, to be carried on by that company with a view to the better carrying on by any such company of its activities under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) hereof and which are specified in an order of the Minister;
(d) such other activities as shall be specified in an order of the Minister;

and the Memorandum of Association or charter of that company shall be deemed to be limited accordingly.
(2) A copy of any such order as aforesaid shall be delivered by the Corporation to the Registrar of Companies.
(3) An order made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I understand that the consequential Amendments, which are to lines 26, and 33 and in page 4, line 18, are being considered at the same time. The principle raised by this Amendment moved in another place is a simple one, and one which we should be wise not to agree with for the reasons which I propose to state. Under the Bill as it passed this House the publicly owned companies were permitted to carry out such activities as they were authorised to discharge under their memoranda of association. The position remained exactly the same as if they had remained under private ownership with this important exception,

that the Minister could, at any time, order the Corporation or any of the publicly owned bodies to stop any of their activities if they appeared to be going outside the ambit of their proper province, or if they were doing anything that this House thought undesirable; so that there was an effective and proper limit on the activities of the publicly owned companies.
Beyond that it was thought unreasonable to impose any limitations, because we did not see why a company authorised to carry out certain industrial or commercial activities should be otherwise impeded if it was thought a commercial and a desirable thing to do when that company came under public ownership. That is how the Bill left this House, the powers of the companies being unlimited except that the Minister could order a cessation of any of the activities of any of the companies concerned.
The Amendment sets out a different provision, in which the companies will only be entitled to carry out Second Schedule activities, activities on which they were engaged prior to the company passing into public ownership, activities which for technical reasons in the opinion of the Minister they ought to be allowed to carry out. I pity the poor Minister who would have to decide whether certain proposals should be passed because there are good technical reasons for them. It would put the Minister in an impossible position to decide what are and what are not good technical reasons. Most important of all is that the companies may carry out any other activities—that is any activities beyond those of making Second Schedule products and in which they were engaged up to the day they were taken over—only with the consent of the Minister and the two Houses of Parliament.
If a particular company in the normal course of development wanted to carry out some new activity, which is not mentioned in its memorandum of associa-


tion and which the Minister and the Corporation thought desirable and necessary for it to undertake, what would happen is that before that company could carry out the new activity it would be necessary to lay an order before both Houses of Parliament, either of which could negative that order and prevent the company carrying it out even although the Minister and the Corporation might be absolutely convinced that the activity was desirable.
That is undesirable on constitutional grounds. The supervision of Parliament over this Corporation should be on grounds of general policy, general administration and efficiency, and it is wholly wrong to ask either House to consider technical problems and whether a particular firm should be enabled to carry out some new development when the arguments in favour may be exceedingly involved. I can well understand how in a House where the Government of the day has not a majority, competitive industry might say through its spokesman, "We are already carrying out this particular technical process and, therefore, it is wholly wrong that the Corporation should do it," and then it would be found impossible to get a proposal through both Houses. In view of the difficulty and considering that in a big assembly like the Houses of Parliament, the technical merits of carrying out a new process might be difficult to present, and in view of the fact that it might be an undesirable development that new undertakings could be stifled by the veto of the House of Lords—

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I want to understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument. Is it his view that it is very difficult for the Minister to take a technical decision of this sort?

Mr. Strauss: I was dealing first of all with paragraph (c), the new activities on which a company may engage. I said it was very difficult to decide what are or what are not good technical reasons. I have to decide whether this new activity should be carried out, and I say it would be difficult to say whether it would be justified on technical grounds. I was dealing then with the difficulty of this proposal, which lays down that no new

activity may be undertaken apart from doubtful technical ones without the consent of both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: In Clause 23, when it is a question of certain rights which may have been parted with, the Bill says:
Where it appears to the Minister that it is in the public interest, for the purpose of securing the efficient carrying on of the business of any publicly-owned company, …
Is not that exactly what is meant by the words of this Amendment? Would not the consideration there be a technical one?

Mr. Strauss: Yes, I would be perfectly happy if the thing were left to the Minister. I think it should properly be left to the Minister to make an administrative decision of that sort, but the paragraph goes on to say that an order must be laid before both Houses of Parliament. That is what I am objecting to. This is a responsibility which the Minister should properly discharge. He is answerable to Parliament, and the matter can be made the subject of a Question and raised in the House. That is the right constitutional procedure in this matter.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am anxious to understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument. Is the Minister saying that he would find no difficulty in making a technical decision if only the Minister had to make up his mind, and that it would be impossible to make a technical decision if an order had to be laid before both Houses of Parliament?

Mr. Strauss: I am sorry that I seem to be having particular difficulty this evening in making myself clear. What I am saying is that the decision on whether a company should carry out a new activity which it was not carrying out prior to being taken over, is one which could easily and should properly be settled by the Minister after taking advice from the Corporation and possibly from the Consumers' Council. This proposal from another place does not say that. It says that the Minister should lay an order, which will be subject to the veto of either House of Parliament, and I am saying that it is wholly wrong that the decision on whether a company should expand to carry out some new activity and exploit some new idea should be subject to veto by either House of Parliament. It is on those grounds that


I am objecting to this Amendment, which appears to be restrictive, and puts the relationship between Parliament, the Minister, the Corporation and the public company in the wrong perspective.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I want to deal with a previous point. I understood the Minister is saying that this Amendment was hopeless because it imposed on him technical decisions he thought we could not possibly make. The argument about the order is a different matter. Do I understand him now to say he would have no difficulty in making decisions on technical grounds?

Mr. Strauss: I was pointing out in passing that the words "technical reasons" in paragraph (c) might put the Minister in some difficulty in making a decision. However, that is not my main argument. I mentioned that in passing. My main argument is—I do not want to repeat myself—that this sort of decision, about the expansion of a particular publicly-owned company, should be an administrative decision by the Minister responsible to Parliament, and not the subject of a veto by either House. For that reason I ask the House to reject the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Lyttelton: I must say I was astonished to hear the speech of the Minister of Supply because it conflicted with what was said by the Government in another place. I do not know if I shall be out of Order in quoting the actual words, but as they apparently lay down a matter of policy I hope I shall be in Order in quoting them. It was said:
My right hon. Friend is willing we should limit the activities of the bodies to those which they were carrying on before, or such activities as are substantially of the same character.
There is no mention that the Government appear to have changed their mind.

Mr. Strauss: We have not changed our mind a bit. That matter was being discussed in general, and if a proposition had been put forward somewhat along the lines suggested in the speech of the spokesman in the House of Lords we should have considered it; but this is something entirely different that we could not possibly accept.

Mr. Lyttelton: Am I to understand from this startling intervention that if this proposed new Clause had stopped short

at paragraph (b) it would have been accepted?

Mr. Strauss: I do not go as far as that, but we could have looked at it very carefully. However, the present wording we cannot possibly accept.

Mr. Lyttelton: The Minister is now getting into extremely deep water. The Bill as it now stands is by far the most amateurish thing that has ever been seen. Let me, for example—I must do it again—read from the memorandum of association of the Steel Company of Wales. I think this memorandum is dated some time in 1947 or 1948. It is a quite recent thing. The Steel Company of Wales is to carry on all the ordinary activities of steel makers and manufacturers, and then those of
founders, smiths, engineers, miners, makers of bricks, tiles and the like products of all descriptions, manufacturers of coke, patent fuel and all kinds of products of coal and other mineral substances, tar and oil distillers, chemical manufacturers, machine and tool manufacturers, and of agents, brokers, exporters, importers and merchants in all or any of the things aforesaid. …
As if that were not enough another paragraph of the memorandum goes on to say:
To carry on in addition to the said trades and businesses any other trade, business or employment, manufacturing or otherwise, which may seem to the Company capable of being conveniently carried on either in connection with or in addition to any business hereby authorised or otherwise calculated directly or indirectly to enhance the value of or render profitable any of the Company's property, rights or business for the time being.
It is impossible to conceive of powers which are wider than those. They are as wide as the English language can make them. The object of the Bill ostensibly—and I noted down the right hon. Gentleman's words—is "to bring under public ownership the main producing undertakings in certain sections of the iron and steel industry." The total result of the Bill is that the Corporation is left, without the estoppel of the Minister, to go into any activity that the human brain can conceive. If there is one that the Corporation cannot enter into, then that is covered by these "overcoat" articles. This is a very deep matter, because the Bill extends the competition of a nationalised concern into any field of activity which the Minister chooses to allow.
7.45 p.m.
The Minister trotted out some constitutional point, but could there be a bigger one than this very power which seems to me has really to be limited? It must be limited, otherwise there is no end to the competition with the taxpayer's undertaking with the taxpayer's own money. There is no reason why the Minister should not go into the hotel business, or into pleasure steamers, or cargo carrying. There is nothing he cannot do. It is absolutely essential, if we are to have any control over these matters, that the power which the Corporation and its subsidiaries are now endowed with should be limited in some way.

Mr. George Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman arguing that the powers of the Corporation should be annulled by the Minister in the name of Parliament, or is he further arguing for an order every time to be agreed by both Houses? His argument would apply to the first.

Mr. Lyttelton: The annulment order is a secondary point. The first point that I am making is, that if we are to contemplate—which I personally do not, for I do not think it will come to be—the existence of this Corporation, this State monopoly, it is absolutely necessary to define the limits within which that monopoly is to act. It is absolutely necessary. It is bad enough if it is confined to the sections of the industry in the ostensible objects of the Bill, because even there, there are large numbers of activities in the iron and steel industry owned by the taxpayers who pay the taxes, and, therefore, indirectly finance this high flowing project of the Government.
There are also a large number of privately-owned steel operations which are embraced within the Corporation's frontiers; for instance, 16 per cent. of the total output of light sections and bars, 77 per cent. of steel castings, 95 per cent. of bolts and nuts, and so forth. I shall not weary the House by reading them all. In my submission it is bad enough to have the State monopoly competing with the taxpayer's own undertaking with the taxpayer's own money. It is bad enough that the State monopoly

can deal with things which, by a little Ministerial imagination, may be described as having to do with iron and steel. That is one thing. But what we are doing here is to extend the frontier of the monopoly absolutely over the whole field.
I am not one of those who think that the present Minister of Supply, with a strong mercantile background, is likely to be the instrument that is to put the Iron and Steel Corporation into being as large dealers in general as the United States Steel Corporation is. I think he will probably stop short of that. However, these Ministers are transitory folk. They make mistakes, and get up against their colleagues, and are committed to the outer parts of the party from time to time.
I say that any House of Commons which put upon the Statute Book a State monopoly financed by the taxpayers' money without attempting to define where the outskirts of that monopoly were to be drawn would be failing in its duty, and that is precisely why in another place this new Clause was introduced—in order to define and confine the Corporation within limits.
The hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) raised a second matter. I should be amongst the first to agree that, if the Corporation had not already wide powers, it would be administratively undesirable to have the annulment procedure put upon the Corporation. However, let the House remember that it can engage in the whole of the Second Schedule activities. If any hon. Member forgets what they are he had better look at the Second Schedule. They are wide enough. In addition to that, the Corporation and its subsidiaries can engage in any other activities the companies were carrying on before the war.
It is only when they have exhausted all these activities that the negative procedure in the Houses of Parliament is to be invoked, and, I suggest, very properly invoked, because the extensions of these activities without some Parliamentary control puts into jeopardy any industry carried on in any sort of activity by private enterprise. Everybody is in jeopardy. Tomorrow the steel company may decide to go in for making turbo-alternators. It would be a sad day if


they do because they will lose a lot of money and they will lose a lot of our money as well. If the Government wish to create an area of uncertainty as wide as possible, this is the way to do it. They say, "I am going to set up a monopoly, but any attempt to define where that monopoly shall stop I shall resist."
I think, in his explanation, the Minister would have gone as far as to agree that activities should be confined to those specified in the first column of the Second Schedule and to activities which the company was carrying on immediately before the general date of transfer. What sticks in his gizzard is the part about the activities
which for technical reasons ought, in the opinion of the Minister, to be carried on by that company
and such other activities as are subject to the annulment procedure.
We can hardly have Parliamentary control with fewer restrictive Clauses than there are in the new Clause. The extra-ordinary part of the Minister's reply was that, while a spokesman in another place had said the Government would accept Second Schedule activities and what I call pre-war activities, when it came to having to exercise a technical judgment, that was quite impossible, that went far beyond anything which exists even in his wildest imagination. I think these explanations are disingenuous. To reject the whole thing out of hand when you agree with half of it is not the sort of explanation which we can accept.
In conclusion, I say that it is an absolute Parliamentary duty laid upon us, to whatever party we belong, to see that the limits of a State monopoly are clearly defined—and where those limits are set is another matter. This attitude of the Government is part of their sloppy attitude in these things. They say, "The Minister will be a sensible man; leave it to him, do not let us define frontiers. As for a State monopoly, anything which a company has done let them continue. It will all work out on the day." That is a very vicious attitude, and I say that with this Corporation spreading possibly all over the field of industry, there is no one whose business is not in jeopardy and no part of the industrial, commercial, and financial machine of this country which may not one day find itself in the Gov-

ernment net and which may not be changed one of these days from a profit-earning, tax-paying industry into one which will be a loss to the taxpayer and the Exchequer.

Brigadier Rayner: I have not intervened in the Debates on this Bill before, because I know nothing about steel production, but I represent 60,000 consmers of one sort and another and, in particular, several small businesses. They are considerable consumers and it is proper that I should speak in the Debate tonight.
My right hon. Friend made it quite clear that the main intention of this Clause is to eradicate unfair competition by the Government, in so far as it can be eradicated under this rather deplorable Bill. I should like to draw the attention of the House to what the Minister said in this connection on Second Reading:
Critics suggest that it is undesirable for a publicly-owned company to be in competition with a privately-owned company. On the contrary, this is likely to be highly beneficial, in that both the publicly-owned and the privately-owned companies will be subjected to the competition of each other. What is wrong with that? Do people fear that private industry cannot withstand the superior efficiency of public industry?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1948; Vol. 458, c. 66.]
Of course not, but what private industry fears is unfair Governmental competition. Not very long ago the President of the Board of Trade asked producers and merchants to show the spirit of adventure, but if a producer or merchant shows that spirit of adventure today and loses, the bank is on his tail pretty quickly. If he wins, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes most of the fruit of his enterprise. It is not only that, however. Today, more and more, particularly if this Bill is passed in its present form, he is subject to unfair Government competition, competition by a Government organisation with vast funds at its disposal to which he subscribes himself; and, of course, he is faced with an organisation in a position where it does not matter if it makes a loss. The Minister calls that fair competition.
I was in Canada in the nearly '30's, on the staff of the Governor-General, when various Canadian Ministers were discussing in the House and over the dinner table, the rights and wrongs of competi-


tion between the Canadian National Railway and the C.P.R. I listened to those conversations with a great deal of interest and I notice that in these days those people are very careful about what they nationalise. The other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that our industry must be prepared to attack the American market. I suggest that industry, which is like an army, depends in attack upon its morale. How can we expect our industry to have high morale when it is not only fighting the Americans but is subject to all these disabilities at home, and particularly to this ever-increasing Government competition in its own field? I, therefore, support this Clause in the hope that it will do something to improve this unhappy Bill.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I must say that the Minister produced the most astonishing arguments against this Clause. He started off with what I think must have been one of the worst I have heard for a long time in this House. He is a Minister who is supposedly responsible for taking over one of the major industries of this country, but he said that this new Clause could not conceivably be accepted because it would entail the Minister having to do something upon technical grounds.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Mr. G. R. Strauss indicated dissent.

Mr. Thorneycroft: It is no use the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head; he said that not once but several times.

Mr. Strauss: I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent me. I did not say that this Clause could not conceivably be accepted because it entailed consideration of technical matters by the Minister. I put the difficulty of interpreting the word "technical" in this connection as a fact. I said that was not a reason why I was asking for the rejection of the Clause, but it was merely a comment on the wording of the Clause.

Mr. Thorneycroft: That will not do. The Minister is responsible to the House of Commons and he puts these things forward for some reason. The right hon. Gentleman was supposedly arguing to persuade the House not to accept the new Clause. Why did he talk about the difficulties of the term "technical," if that were irrelevant to the argument he

was putting forward? He went as far as that hare would run and it did not run very far. After all, what is his own interpretation as to what will happen about making a decision? On what grounds is he to make a decision? On some whim of his own?
The only conceivable grounds upon which the Minister can make a decision as to whether a company can extend its activities or should retract its activities are technical grounds—whether it would be in accordance with the general efficiency of the industry or not. Those are the only grounds. What the right hon. Gentleman really meant, and what he nearly found himself saying, was that he would not mind making technical decisions as long as the House of Commons could not come along and pass an order about them. That is what the House is here for. When that becomes manifest, even to his hon. Friends behind him, he wishes to abandon the argument altogether. I understand that he is not seeking now to persist in that sort of argument.
The Minister then went on to say that if the new Clause were accepted—he expressed considerable astonishment at the idea—and if a company wanted to carry out a new activity which was not in its memorandum of association, Parliament would have to be consulted.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: If the activity was not carried on upon the day before the transfer. That is quite a different thing.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The right hon. Gentleman says that if they wished such a new activity to be carried out, Parliament would have to be consulted. We do not regard with anything like as much horror as does the right hon. Gentleman the suggestion that Parliament should be consulted. Why should not Parliament be consulted? Let us look at the matter quite fairly. It is important whether the field of activity of a great corporation should be extended into new fields. We may differ about whether that is right or wrong, and it is a proper matter for discussion. It is one of the matters that we have been discussing a good deal during the last three months. Surely it is not unreasonable to say that Parliament ought to be consulted before such a corporation starts up and enters into compe-


tition with almost any field of activity that the human brain can conceive and with almost any series of private companies.
The other thing that puzzled me about the right hon. Gentleman and gave me cause for suspicion was that, so far as I could see, the principle of the Clause has been accepted in another place. The right hon. Gentleman said himself that he would have been prepared to accept an Amendment that there should be restriction. If the Government think that is right, why do they not do something about it? They have had plenty of opportunities in the other place, and they have had opportunities upon the Report stage, of putting down an Amendment. What left me suspicious was that hon. Members opposite, and the Minister as well have claimed that the main purpose of the Steel Bill had nothing to do with the taking over of steel. The steel industry, they said, holds such a key position in the industry of the country, it holds the keys of power, that control of that industry would immediately give them control of many other ranges of industry.
Hon. Members on the other side and Ministers of the Crown have used that kind of argument. The Bill, without the proposed new Clause, gives those people their opportunity to get into every kind of industry and create the maximum chaos in the free competitive system. They want to create such a situation in this country that it will be impossible for us ever to get back to the system under which this country has so far lived.
The Bill, in that sense, means competition with anyone, discrimination against anyone and any kind of activity without limit. In the other place it was admitted that some limit should be set. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that limits have to be placed on the powers of entering into new activities. Some hon. Member opposite should get up and try to present some serious argument. If none can be found, the Clause ought to be agreed to.

Mr. Erroll: In an interjection, the Minister referred to the fact that in the proposed new Clause the Corporation were to be limited to the activities which were in existence on the day of taking over. By implication he suggested that that was an unreasonable limitation, and

that the Corporation ought not to be so restricted by Parliament, which is concerned with the taking over of industry as it exists today and not with giving the Minister unlimited powers by blank cheque for the future. We say "By all means." If the House agrees, against the wishes of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, to give the Government this Bill to take over the industry, the industry should be taken over as it is known today and not as an industry which has powers in its memorandum of association to embark upon any other kind of extraneous activity.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Should the industry be completely static?

Mr. Erroll: It has already embarked upon a very wide field of additional activity. It will be able to embrace a much wider field, if it is to extend its activities from the present range. The Minister could come back to the House for permission to extend, just as the Government came originally to the House for permission to take over, the industry as it is at present. The purpose of the Bill is clear. The Preamble states that the Bill is to take over certain of the producing sections of the industry, but as one reads further one finds that what is to be taken over are not just the producing sections but companies with powers to engage in many other forms of activity because of the widely-drawn nature of their memoranda of association.
There is a very good reason for the memoranda of private companies being widely drawn. I know many hon. Members opposite say that if that is good for private industry, it is good enough for public industry. That is a facile argument, because the whole situation is altered. Memoranda of association may be widely drawn for the benefit of one company as compared with another, because those firms are in competition. Here we are engaged in the creation of a monopoly against which no man can stand. If the proposed Clause is rejected, we are contemplating these very wide powers being given to a monopoly and not to individual firms who, if they show excessive ambition to extend, can have their powers whittled down and dissipated by competition from other firms who are more efficient in their own well-established field. Because private firms


have widely drawn memoranda is no reason why that should be true of a public monopoly. One of the reasons for the protective Clauses of the Bill is to ensure that the monopoly does not have excessive powers. We are very strongly opposed to the memoranda of association being so widely drawn that no private company can embark upon any activity without having to come back to this House.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) said earlier, we know the reason for the Bill. It is to drive a Trojan horse into every capitalist stronghold in this country by means of the powers in the Bill, which will make it possible for the Corporation, acting on behalf of the Minister, to enter any industry it likes from within or through the back door. It can unload its soldiers within the stronghold and it can break up any centre of industrial power to which it chooses to take exception. That is the real reason behind the cleverly devised construction of the Bill. We seek to restrict that power. We say that if the Minister wishes to extend the activities of the Corporation or the companies as on the take-over date, he should come back to Parliament. Surely that is not much to ask. That is not a very great amount to expect of a Government which is always paying lip-service to Parliament.
It is said that any extension of the Corporation's activities will not matter because they will be competitive with other firms and that, as a party which advocates the maximum competition, the Opposition should have no objection to an extension of the competitive system. Quite right—if only we could be sure that the competition would be fair. The trouble is that we know it will not be fair, because the whole Bill is weighted heavily in favour of the Corporation. The Corporation can fix the selling prices of its companies. The Minister may even subsidise the Corporation with public money. The Corporation has powers of compulsory acquisition of land. Furthermore, there is a free-lance extension of the powers of the Minister. The Minister ought to have sought the minimum powers necessary to take over the producing sections of the iron and steel industry instead of a maximum extension of his powers as he has done.
Our Amendment seeks to restrict not only the power of the Corporation but also the power of the subsidiary companies. It might be argued by the other side of the House that our Amendments to Clause 2 restrict the power of the Corporation and the power of the subsidiaries as well, but the subsidiaries will be able to do exactly as they please, however much the Corporation is restricted. Our new Clause allows plenty of latitude for the existing extraneous activities which are being taken over. We do not wish to suggest any unreasonable curtailment of extraneous activities which are already part and parcel of the commercial practice of the firms being taken over. It would obviously be unreasonable to suggest that many of the great iron and steel producing firms should abandon their extra activities such as bridge building, the manufacture of certain chemicals or the ownership and management of certain items of property. What we want to do is to avoid the extension of those activities, which can take place as the Bill now stands.
If the Government seek to extend the activity of the Corporation into other fields of business, they will be able to play a very strong hand against private industry. As I said just now, competition will be all right if it is fair, but how can it be fair when the assets of the industry are acquired well below their true market value and when the new capital required for any of the technical developments, to which the Minister referred without being at all specific, can be financed with money at gilt-edged rates, whereas private industry must go to the open market to secure what terms it can?
Raw materials are to be supplied to the Corporation at preferential prices, and in any case the Corporation can fix the prices of the products supplied by subsidiary companies. Advantageous terms can thus be given to the subsidiaries of the Corporation which are engaged in competition with outside firms, the outside firms being compelled to purchase from the Corporation at higher prices. We can thus see the way in which external competitors can be taken over under pressure—by nominal agreement, but in fact under pressure. This extension can and undoubtedly will take place, so that the Corporation and its subsidiary


companies may come to control and operate an ever-growing sector of the British economy, to the very great detriment of the country as a whole. Our Amendment, in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c)—

Mr. Daines: The hon. Gentleman frequently refers to "our Amendment." Are we to understand that the Opposition in the other place and here are the same thing?

Mr. Erroll: I am sorry if there is confusion in the mind of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Daines: Oh, no, there is not.

Mr. Erroll: Then I am surprised at his intervention. I should have thought that, as it is on comparatively rare occasions that Lords Amendments are discussed, my slip of the tongue in using the word "our" would readily be understood, but, of course, the head of the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) is pretty thick, as we all know.

Mr. Daines: Even for the Tories, that stinks.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Erroll: Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the Lords Amendment cover all reasonable extensions that might be desired. We realise, of course, that the industry must not remain static. The Minister did not really think that I thought that the industry must remain entirely static, or indeed could. The whole point of the Lords Amendment is that reasonable extensions can be granted, and that any revolutionary change owing to the evolution of a new technical process which cannot possibly be envisaged at present is adequately taken care of in paragraph (b).
Surely, as we are to have a great public Corporation, the public is entitled to know what new activities the Corporation is undertaking. By means of the Amendment, they will be able to go to the Registrar of Companies and find out what new activities can be undertaken. Thereby the public and private industry can be safeguarded and the Corporation placed in a better, though perhaps less monopolistic, position.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I admit to being a child in these questions concerning iron and steel. I have not

previously taken part in these Debates. For that reason I have listened with the greatest attention from the beginning of this Debate and I feel that it must be one of the strangest lines of argument to which Mr. Deputy-Speaker has ever had to listen. It seems to me that everyone is potentially arguing on the same side, and that is a very unusual state of affairs here.
This is how I understand the position. When we first came to consider the Bill, the general impression which would be received by a non-specialist like myself was that the companies which were scheduled by the Bill as being taken over would, in effect, surrender to the Corporation those of their activities contained in the Second Schedule and that the Corporation would run the scheduled activities of the scheduled companies. Consequently, it was a considerable surprise to me and to many others when it became evident from the Amendment that its purpose was essentially to curtail to a very great extent the powers which the Bill conferred on the Corporation to extend their activities into a vastly wider range than had originally been anticipated.
So far, I do not think that there is any difference in intention between both side of the House. It is evident, from statements made by Ministers here and in another place, that they would accept that proposition substantially as I have put it. I believe that it is correct to say that it was not the intention of the Government, and probably it still is not, that either the Corporation or its subsidiaries should engage in all kinds of enterprises and businesses quite unrelated to the main purposes of the Bill.
I understood from the Minister's speech that that was also his view. I followed him very closely and, so far as I can understand, his desire and his general intention would have been favourable towards accepting the substance of the Amendment. He did not want the Corporation to have powers which were as widespread as they are at present—without any sort of limitation at all, as my hon. Friends have already shown. He objected to this proposal, first, on the ground that it would be virtually impossible for him to arrive at a decision as to what was or was not technically desirable in the way of an extension. When


my hon. Friend pointed out that the Minister already had to do that under his own Clause 23, the right hon. Gentleman, with the spur of the Opposition, took that fence and swallowed the technicality and passed on to his next objection.
The next and last objection to the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman raised was that while he was prepared, on behalf of the Government, to decide what extensions should be permitted to the ramifications which the Corporation are allowed to pursue through the operations of their subsidiary companies, he was not prepared to tell the House why it was necessary for that to be submitted to Parliament in the form of an affirmative Resolution. If that is what the right hon. Gentleman intended us to understand, the sole point at issue between the two sides of the House is whether or not there is any objection to that decision being the subject of an affirmative Resolution.
I shall be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman will indicate his dissent from that proposition, because I listened to him with the greatest attention and desire to appreciate his argument and, so far as I could see, that was his argument. If that is so, I fail to see what we are arguing about, because the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have accepted the main basis of the Amendment. They agree that curtailment is necessary because it is not provided for otherwise in the Bill, and I can see no ground for objection whatsoever to the proposition that such amendment as is to be the subject of the Minister's decision should in addition be subject to the affirmative Resolution of Parliament.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: One of our difficulties in dealing with this matter is the extreme paucity of argument which comes from the other side of the House, because I think the discussion on this new Clause is vital to the Bill. As hon. Members know, it relates to the way in which wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Corporation should exercise their powers.
I understood that the Government were bound by the doctrine of the mandate. They claimed that their reason for pushing this Bill through this House, their reason for altering the Constitution, was that they had received at the last General

Election this mandate which they were entitled to put into statutory form. The mandate was clearly defined by the Prime Minister. It was to nationalise the relevant portions of the iron and steel industry, not to nationalise a host of ancillary or disconnected activities. The mandate was restricted to the relevant portions of the iron and steel industry, and those of us who studied the Debates which took place in another place understood from the arguments put forward there on behalf of the Government that the Government stood by that position, and that they did not intend to make use of the powers conferred under this Bill to go beyond the relevant portions of the iron and steel industry.
Is that true or not? It is something to which this House and the country are entitled to have a perfectly clear answer. Are the Government to use this Bill as a backdoor method of nationalising a number of other activities, or will they stick to the doctrine of the mandate to which they have hitherto adhered? We have had no answer from the right hon. Gentleman on that point so far this evening, and we are entitled to know—do the Government go back on that decision or do they plainly flaunt their intention to go outside the terms of the mandate which they received?
In fact, the method which the Government have chosen to nationalise the relevant portions of the iron and steel industry opens the door to the Government to go outside the terms of the mandate. Memorandum and articles of association of limited liability companies are drawn in wide terms. The reason for that was because companies did not want to find that certain actions they took were ultra vires after they had taken them, and they also did not want to go to the trouble and expense of altering their memorandum and articles of association. So, in the interests of commercial flexibility, it was reasonable to put in the memorandum a profusion of objects.
I suggest that a completely different consideration applies to a nationalised corporation, because a nationalisation scheme is enacted to nationalise some specificed industry or activity or service. As long as the Socialist Party say that they are going to ask for a mandate from the electorate to nationalise bit by bit individual industries and services, then


surely they must stick to that doctrine if they wish to be honest with the public.
I should not have thought that anyone who examines the new Clause carefully could suggest that it over-limits the activities of the new Corporation. I agree that if we are setting up a Corporation to run this industry, we do not want to hedge it round with every kind of restriction to make it difficult for it to do its job; if the country decides that it is to be a nationalised industry, we want to see it done in the most effective manner.
This new Clause comes under three heads. First, ample scope to the Corporation. They are entitled to carry out all the activities specified in the Second Schedule. It also goes a great deal further than the mandate because it says that the Corporation, or these wholly owned subsidiaries, can carry on any activities which they were carrying on immediately before the general date of transfer. If they were running an hotel, making tennis racquets, doing any one of those manifold activities at the time of the Act coming into operation, then the Corporation is entitled to say that its wholly-owned subsidiary can carry it on. That is going a long way outside the strict scope of the mandate.
Then we go a step further. We concede to the Minister power to decide that, if there are technical reasons why one of these companies should embark upon some other activity which is not in the Second Schedule or is not already being carried on, he shall have power to permit the Corporation to say that the company carries on that new activity which he thinks is technically desirable. That, again, I should have thought was going a long way but we do not stop there.
We simply say in this new Clause that if beyond those three things the Minister wants the Corporation to have one of its companies branch out into some entirely new activity, which is technically disassociated, which it is not carrying on at present, which is not in the Second Schedule, then Parliament should have its say, but not by the affirmative procedure. I think, with respect, that my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) indicated that we were asking for the affirmative procedure. We are not. We are simply asking that this House should have the power of annulment.
All hon. Members should be seriously concerned with this question of the democratic control of nationalised activities. We raised the same point on the last two Amendments. It is a matter of working out that which at present we have not got right. I do not think any Member on any side of the House believes that the present methods of running the nationalised industries are efficient or effective so far as democratic control is concerned. Accepting, for the purposes of my argument, that it is a good thing to nationalise these industries—which I do not believe—I still say that no one really thinks we have got the business of democratic control properly worked out.
8.30 p.m.
We have been voted down on the suggestion that we should exercise some Parliamentary control as to qualifications for membership of the Corporation. Here we are asking for Parliamentary control of completely new activities by the Corporation. Is not that a very reasonable request? How else are we to get Parliamentary control of the management of this industry? As an hon. Member pointed out in a previous Debate, we have a one-day or a two-day Debate, as the case may be, but such a multitude of subjects are raised, that the Government make the whole Debate a question of confidence and we do not get an opportunity of focusing the attention of the House on some particular point. Under the procedure which we propose, the House would be given, in a manner which does not prove to be at all hampering or restrictive to the Government, a chance of exercising this control.

Mr. Attewell: Is the hon. and learned Member now saying that only this House has a voice in the making of orders and that the other House has no such voice whatsoever?

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am asking for exactly the same procedure as has operated throughout the four years of the present Parliament. In innumerable cases, orders which have been made have been prayed against in one House or the other, and the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Attewell) knows exactly how much embarrassment has been caused to the Government thereby. On one or two occasions, I think, the Government have had some pretty narrow


squeaks, but so far as votes are concerned they have always managed to get their orders approved by this House.
Nevertheless, that procedure has provided an opportunity of focusing public attention on these matters. The Government have not suffered, and the public have gained from the way in which these matters have been discussed when Prayers have come before the House, even though very frequently they have had to be discussed at a very inconvenient hour of the night for a great many of us. That is the procedure for which we are asking, and the hon. Member knows exactly the extent of the embarrassment which it has caused to the Government during the past four years.

Mr. Attewell: Would the hon. and learned Member answer my question? Does the other House take any part in the procedure of the annulment of orders?

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The other House has the power to pray against orders but, as I thought was generally accepted by the Government, carries out its duties in a way not to cause unnecessary embarrassment to the Government. I think that the figure for Prayers in the other House is something like three to every one thousand orders which are made. The great majority of the discussions under that procedure, of course take place in this House, and I cannot recollect any case of an adverse vote for the Government in the other House. The effective check would be the power of praying against these orders in this House.
I ask hon. Members opposite to believe that there are some of us who think that there is a very serious danger in the extensions of these activities of the public corporations. [Interruption.] I thought I heard hon. Members opposite saying, "Hurry up." As this is the first discussion we have had on the Bill which has not been subject to the Guillotine, in spite of the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Patronage Secretary, I propose to continue speaking until I have said what I want to say.
The danger in the extension of these activities of nationalised corporations lies in the very great power which is transferred to the hands of a particular in-

dividual. The Corporation is to operate, it is conceded, under the control of the Minister. There is power to fix prices, to subsidise imports and compulsorily to acquire land. There is political control of the financial policy of the Corporation. If we do all these things together and let the Corporation branch out irrespective of the will of Parliament into all sorts of new fields which were not within the terms of the original mandate, I suggest there is grave danger.
The answer that the Minister is responsible to Parliament and that we must expect the Minister to do the reasonable thing is not good enough because, if we have a political Minister running an industry, unfortunately, politics is bound to enter into the decision. The political prestige of the Minister will be at stake and the political prestige of the Government and of the party that Government represents is bound to be at stake. Inevitably, as a result of the ordinary strains and stresses of our political system and indeed, of human nature itself, politics will enter into the running of the industry. I think that is a thoroughly bad thing.
I agree that the general policy decision has to be political, but, once the general policy decision has been made to nationalise the relevant portions of the iron and steel industry, there should not be a decision by a political Minister to extend the field of activities of the Corporation beyond the strict terms of the mandate. This new Clause is a matter of great gravity and if the Government, even at this late hour, do not accept it, it will show quite clearly that they do not intend to treat as binding upon them, or to treat with truth and sincerity, their statements that they would not nationalise unless they had a mandate to nationalise, and unless they had proved their case for nationalising.

Mr. Attewell: I always listen with a great deal of interest to statements by the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), but I rose to reply to the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) and I hope he will not think I am discourteous because it took me so long to follow him. My remarks are directed to the challenge made by the hon. Member for Monmouth in asking us why we are concerned about this particular matter requiring an order.
My remarks are coloured by the fact that I have heard the case put forward by hon. Members of the Opposition throughout the various stages of the Bill. It is reported that on hearing that he was dead, Mark Twain said it was "an exaggeration," and when I hear Members of the Tory Opposition saying they desire to improve the Bill, I think that a gross understatement. I do not think the case put forward by the Opposition is put forward with the desire of improving the Bill. I do not impute any motive to the other House—I understand it is out of Order to do so—but the Opposition made great play with what the House of Lords would do to the Bill when they received it and it was a foregone conclusion in my mind that the House of Lords would carry out the policy put forward by the Tory Opposition in this House. I do not think I have been mistaken.
If the Corporation are denied the right to take part in these activities, the Opposition must know that that would mean the stultifying of the companies. In due course the companies would lose the competitive race and finally reach the bankruptcy courts. Companies left in the Third Schedule, carrying on various activities which the Minister agrees they should carry on, must have full liberty to introduce into their activities any changed circumstance which is necessary to the life of the company.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Will the hon. Member agree that it is desirable that they should be allowed to carry out activities which, for technical reasons, ought in the opinion of the Minister to be carried out by them with a view to the better carrying out of their activities under paragraph (a)? If so, is not that covered by the proposed new Clause in paragraph (c)?

Mr. Attewell: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Member; that is so. I wish to direct my remarks to the hon. Member for Monmouth and to show why I cannot accept the new Clause. I feel, therefore, that the companies should not only be allowed to carry on what is contained in their memorandum at the moment; in spite of the explanation of the Opposition tonight as to how wide, broad and varied those activities were, I still feel that as those companies are being taken over as viable—I think that is the

word which is used—we must ensure that they are able to do what is necessary for their continued life.
I now direct my remarks to why I feel that the Minister would be very ill—advised to accept this Amendment, whatever might be the situation regarding the first part of the Amendment. Here we are dealing with the position in which the attitude of another House, long before the Steel Bill reached them, was known and proclaimed by Members of the Opposition. In their strong hostility to nationalisation, they introduced Amendments to the Bill which say that this House, which was returned by the people of this country, shall not decide matters in this Parliament but must await the verdict of another General Election. This is done by a House which is part of the Constitution, but is not elected. That being the position, I am now asked by Members of the Opposition to agree to an Amendment which means, or may mean—I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Wirral who made this point clear—that the matter could go to the other House, which would have the opportunity of vetoing any particular additional activities of these companies.
Is it to be expected that Members on this side of the House, who have fought for the idea that the steel industry is essential to the life of this country, would go through all the difficulty and trouble of promoting and carrying through a Bill, and then, when they consider the question of keeping these companies alive by engaging in additional activities is necessary to the life of a company, would agree willingly to place before another House the question of whether those companies should live or die? Of course not. It is a foregone conclusion that the other House would deny us that which we say we know is required. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will not agree to accept the Amendment.

Mr. P. Roberts: I should like to deal first with the point which the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Attewell) made, because it is the second time I have heard today sly imputations against the sincerity of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. I come from Sheffield, I have friends in all sections of the industry, and I wish to make it quite clear that I dislike this Bill intensely. I certainly do not want to see


it passed in any form. I sincerely hope that it will not be passed, but I have to face up to the horrible possibility that it may be passed. Let me assure the hon. Member for Harborough that if it is to be passed, it is my sincere intention to do what I can to improve it for the benefit of the general public and all sections of the industry in Sheffield, and I very much dislike these sly imputations against that sincerity. I assure the hon. Member that if the Bill happens to become law, I wish it to be as little harmful as possible.

Mr. Attewell: I wish to correct the phrase which the hon. Members used about "sly imputations." I was as direct as possible in what I said about certain hon. Members on the other side of the House. There was nothing sly about my imputation.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Roberts: If the hon. Member continues to make those direct imputations of insincerity about Members on this side of the House, I wonder how far he is in Order in doing so. Secondly, so far as I am concerned, I directly repudiate any such imputation. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister will think further about the implications of this Motion. I wish again to refer to Sheffield. As I said, we make steel and are greatly affected by this Bill. There are thousands of firms in Sheffield, however, and tens of thousands of operatives connected with firms not taken over under the Bill, who are directly related to the iron and steel industry. It is to their welfare that I direct the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary.
What is the position at the moment? There are a large number of these concerns; they may be cutlery concerns, using special steel, or they may make magnets or files, all from various kinds of steel. They are not taken over but they are dependent upon the main industry. These industries, and especially the cutlery industries, have built up on a very carefully balanced basis. It is balanced not only with regard to home production, but also with regard to sales all over the world. In point of fact, these people do very great service, not only to Sheffield, but to the country at large.
At the present moment the large companies do not go in for these smaller activities, and they realise the service which is given by the smaller firms. There is a great deal of responsibility in the industry that these big firms do not go—if I may use the term—"bashing" into the smaller industries and completely upsetting their sensitive mechanisation. There is a very good liaison between them, through the chambers of commerce and various trade associations, which leaves these smaller firms to carry on and exercise their skill which has been built up over a great number of years.
That leads to planning, and this is where I particularly draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the small family concerns which have to plan for 20 years ahead with regard to their capital expenditure. As the Bill is drawn at the moment, they see nationalisation coming to the big firms from whom they have taken their orders. As the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) pointed out, nationalisation means a political implication. We remember the present Secretary of State for War, when he was the Minister of Fuel and Power, saying that no one who opposed him over electricity nationalisation would have a job or be given a job in the nationalised electricity concern; and there have been other cases where political action is bound to come into a queswhich is purely economic. What is the position of these smaller people who have to plan ahead? At the moment the industry is fairly well balanced, but now they fear that, for some political cause outside their scope, a direction may come from the Minister which will completely upset the industry.

Mr. J. Jones: Mr. J. Jones indicated dissent.

Mr. Roberts: The Parliamentary Secretary may shake his head, but their very real fear is that they may suddenly find that a whole shop of a big concern has been taken over for some kind of mechanisation in which they are themselves employed. All that this Amendment would do, as I understand it, is that if the Corporation wanted to enter into a field of this kind they would have to come to the House and the publicity of it would give the trade which was, so to speak, threatened or attacked a chance of putting its case as to why there should not be duplication or unnecessary ex-


penditure. As I see it, that publicity would be very necessary. Without this Amendment all that would happen is that the big concern would carry on without anyone knowing what was happening, the publicity being motivated—if the House will forgive the term—by political rather than by economic action.
I would reinforce that by explaining to the House what is happening at the present moment with regard to the Gas Council because that is slightly analogous. There were firms in the gas industry who serviced the main gas companies. They built their gasholders, made their pipelines and so on, and they did it very well. Now the Gas Council is collecting to itself designers and technicians and duplicating all over again the mechanisation of production. The result is unnecessary cost in the production of articles. The procedure is uneconomic. That is the tendency which we already see in the gas industry. Nationalisation takes place, and the board say, "We must have big staffs, new drawing staffs, deputy drawing directors and all sorts of other people collected together."
That might well happen in some of these industries, such as those making cutlery or magnets. My point is that in the normal economic sphere those companies would not necessarily rush to upset this delicate balance. I fear that nationalised industry, either for grandiose reasons or for the sake of waving the flag, will take these steps on most unsound grounds. This Amendment would enable pressure to be brought to bear upon the Minister and the board to desist from their stupid desires. It would provide a great safeguard which would gratify a large number of people in the area I represent. I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter.

Mr. Pickthorn: I hope that the Treasury Bench really will think it due to the House to give us a little more reason why they are so much opposed to this particular bit of Parliamentary control over iron and steel—or rather not over iron and steel activities but over activities to be taken within Government purview under the aegis of an Iron and Steel Bill. The Minister began with the impossibility of a political Minister making technical decisions—but he dropped that one pretty quickly—and then the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr.

Attewell) produced a new and very strange answer of which I hope that a Law Officer will give us some explanation if nobody else does. Indeed, in any case, I think that we ought to have a Law Officer on this matter because the argument was that it is intolerable that this should be a matter for statutory instrument so long as the House of Lords has the power to pray against a statutory instrument. That was the argument. It is, of course, an argument against every kind of statutory instrument, not only against this one.
If it is true that one of the two great parties in the State has so deep and profound and wide-reaching an objection to the Second Chamber as at present constituted, or to any other Second Chamber, that it finds it intolerable that any statutory instrument should in any way come under the control of that Chamber, then I think that is an argument for saying that the negative procedure shall be possible in this House only—in the Lower House and not the Upper House. There is a case for that. I should be against that case myself, but I see a case for that.
What there can be no case for at all is to tell us that there are to be statutory instruments over which it is intolerable that this House should have any kind of control—even negative, even occasional—because there is some faint risk that every now and then perhaps the other place might wish to use the same sort of procedure. That was the second argument put up against this Amendment. Really, with respect to the hon. Member for Harborough, I do not think that it will do. The Treasury Bench ought to put up a Law Officer either to repudiate that doctrine or to explain it further, because it is a new step in constitutional argument.
The only things I wanted to say were said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) and by my hon. Friend for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks). I think that between them they said practically everything that I wanted to say I do not want to recapitulate, but—if I might have the attention of the Minister for one minute—I just want to put one more point. It has been said over and over again from behind him—and I think it was said by the Minister, or at least implied—that


they could not believe that anyone on this side wished to improve the Bill, as if that were one of the arguments against the Amendment. It must be a bad Amendment because the Opposition want it. That is not a very high level of debating, but since it has been raised two or three times, I think it deserves some short answer.
I think the answer is, cannot they conceive that even Tories are inclined sometimes to think that half a loaf is better than no bread; that if one cannot successfully resist a Bill—and I still hope that we shall successfully resist this Bill—which one regards as deleterious to the country, one may at least wish to see it improved in some respects? That is all they have to believe in order to conceive it possible that there is something in our case, that we are neither fools nor knaves, and they ought not to find it necessary continuously to make themselves feel cosy by saying that anybody who does not swallow their extremes must either be a fool or a knave, or both.

Mr. J. Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman's argument that the Front Bench should put up a legal representative of His Majesty's Government to repudiate the statement made by any back bench Member on either side that he has the right to criticise the other place in the sense that he fears that it may do something hostile to this Bill?

Mr. Pickthorn: I am not quite sure that I followed the hon. Gentleman, but, if I am getting it, he is on my last point but one. My last point but one was that it is a new piece of constitutional argument to say that this House is not entitled to desire to see a particular kind of statutory instrument put either under the negative or the positive procedure with which we are all familiar. The argument was that this House ought not to do that so long as it means giving the Upper House the same power. I hope—I am certainly not endeavouring to cheat the hon. Gentleman—I put the argument as fairly as it can be put. Shortly, the question I want to know is, does the Treasury bench accept that argument? If it is prepared to say no, that settles it, and I do not think any of us need be sadder, even the hon. Member for Harborough. We have all used arguments which our Front Bench would not accept.
If, on the other hand, it is an argument which the Government desires to have weight with the House, then I think it should be elaborated and re-stated by the Treasury Bench, and preferably by a Law Officer. That is what I think, and I hope it was a fair thing to say. And now, I am afraid, the hon. Gentleman has rather knocked me off my perch. One can always knock a chap off his perch by answering the question he asked the day before yesterday. It rather breaks into the flow of his thoughts, and the order of my paragraphs has now been rather shaken, but I think, if I remember rightly, this was what I meant to say next.
Hon. Members opposite must not think it hypocritical if we say what I am sure they know and all the world knows—power tends to corrupt; all power also tends to kill itself. Perhaps what is not usually known and admitted is that almost every party or faction that gets into power kills its own power by not being true to its source, by defrauding its own principles—[Interruption.] I dare say Tories have been very naughty in the past, but that does not arise on this Amendment, We will talk about that at another time. What comes under this Amendment is the point, which I will not repeat but merely allude to, about the mandate, which was put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral. He put the point more clearly than I could have done. Nobody can pretend that there is a mandate for this. Nobody could begin to pretend it.
9.0 p.m.
Were I capable, as I thank my Maker I am not, of conceiving that either the Chair or the Table might err, I might have been tempted to be slightly surprised that the powers which we are trying to put under Parliamentary control came under the Title of this Bill at all. These powers to do all these quite unrelated things obviously do not in any common-sense sense come under the short Title of the Bill. They come under the long Title of the Bill only by the procedural accident that the method chosen to nationalise Iron and Steel and incidentally all these things was to leave the limited liability companies concerned in legal existence but to impose something else on top of them. That


is the only reason why this is in Order under this Bill at all. I think that very much underlines the argument against the application of the doctrine of the mandate to those other trades, businesses and activities. Upon the principles of hon. Members opposite, they have got to have a mandate for this in order to do it. It is perfectly plain upon the face of the Bill and in all the arguments, that they have no such mandate at all.
I hardly ever say "quite honestly" because I observe that when other people say "quite honestly" I generally think that something pretty dishonest is just coming, and whenever other people say "frankly" I always know that they are not going to tell me something about their own sins but about mine. On this occasion, however, I will permit myself to say that honestly and frankly I cannot see why the Government make such heavy weather about this matter. How often do they suppose it would arise? They themselves have indicated—I think they have been careful not to bind themselves too tightly—that they do not desire, in the main, to take on activities which are, so to speak, accidentally or, at least, only incidentally, in the memoranda of association and so on of the companies. They do not want to do it often; they do not mean to do it generally, They have no plan and policy for doing it in order to alter things very much. Then how often would they have to come here, running the risk that there would be a Prayer against them?—a risk which, after all is not an immense risk anyway. I really have not yet seen what is the strength of the objection, and I am perfectly satisfied that the House has not yet heard any reasons even worth taking seriously against this Amendment.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I agree with my hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) that in the last hour and a half in which we have been debating this Amendment the House has not heard any serious reason why the Amendment should be rejected. Neither have we heard more than two speches from the other side of the House—one from the Minister and one from an hon. Member on the back benches opposite. I do not think that it can go unnoticed outside—nor do I think it should—that only one back-bencher of the party opposite has risen to his feet to

try to defend his Government's action in rejecting this Amendment. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) said, it is not only an Amendment of great gravity, but, in my view and I think in the view of many other hon. Members on this side of the House at any rate, with possibly one exception, it is the most important Amendment which we shall discuss tonight. I would except the one which alters the vesting date, but with that exception I believe this is the most important Amendment which this House is going to discuss.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) I may describe myself as no technician in these matters. I do not know very much about iron and steel, but I intervene for the reason that I am concerned about the power which the Government are taking and which we want to curb by accepting this Lords Amendment. The power which the Government are taking enables the Corporation to carry on any activity, which the scheduled company or a wholly-owned subsidiary of a scheduled company, is authorised by its memorandum of association to carry on.
Before coming down to the House this afternoon, I asked my secretary to hand me some memoranda of associated companies with which I happened to be connected, though they are not iron and steel companies. One was of a public company and one of a private company, and I found when looking them through—I am not going to weary the House as to the sort of thing they are authorised to do—that the public company as a property company, owning several million pounds worth of property up and down the country, was authorised to acquire property, manage it, build on it, and so on, and it also took the power to carry on the businesses of 20 to 30 different kinds of specified undertakings. It could erect or manage about 30 different kinds of businesses, including hotels, boarding houses, lodging houses, licensed victuallers, tobacconists, dealers in aerated waters and other commodities, none of which the company would contemplate for one moment. Finally, after reciting in 30 to 40 clauses the things the company is able to do in addition to its real purpose of owning and managing property, it adds, we


may do all or any of these things in any part of the world …"and "… do all such things as are incidental—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Gentleman is going much too wide. He must concentrate on this Amendment. People know that company memoranda go very wide. He has made that point very clear indeed.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: All I wanted to do was to show that the memoranda of public and private companies are wide indeed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) in his opening speech, quoted from the memoranda of association of an iron and steel company, which allows the same kind of thing. By exercising powers of this kind, the Corporation could obtain an interest in practically any industry in the land. That is my main point, and this point has been made by other hon. Members.
It seems to me that here, with a new Corporation and a new experiment in the public conduct of a great industry, one would expect the Government, in introducing a Measure of this kind, to proceed with caution, but instead of proceeding with caution they are taking powers to cover any contingency which their own envy and malice, allied to the ingenuity of their advisers, can conjure up. What guarantee is there that these powers which they are taking for themselves will not be used deliberately by some future Government, perhaps of a more violently Left outlook than their own—if that is possible—to carry the policy of State ownership into every industry in the land? That is quite possible under the powers they are taking.
If the Government accepted this Clause, which we are defending, the Corporation would still be left with wide powers which would enable them not only to carry out the basic processes of iron and steel production, which one must assume is the main and original purpose of this Bill, but would also enable them to carry out any activity which these industries may be carrying on at the time of transfer. The kind of scheduled industries which could be carried out include all sorts of things like the making of ball and roller bearings.
I was addressing a Rotary club at a luncheon meeting the other day and the

president told me that he was conducting a business which made ball bearings. He said that there was a remarkable demand from people who make skipping ropes, which now, apparently, have ball bearings fixed in them. They have patent rights. That is the kind of thing which could still be done by the Government if this Clause were accepted. They could make badminton rackets, fire bricks, golf shafts, tennis rackets, umbrella frames and a whole host of other things. They will still be allowed to do that under the terms of this Clause.
If one went further and included the processes of the subsidiaries of these Third Schedule industries, the list would be very greatly lengthened. But in case this does not give the Government sufficient powers the Clause proposes, under subsection (1, c) that
activities which for technical reasons ought, in the opinion of the Minister, to be carried on by that company
could be included. That, together with the facilities given under subsection (1, d)—
such other activities as shall be specified in an order of the Minister
—seems to me to be absolutely adequate for any legitimate purpose which he may have.

Major Legge-Bourke: Speaking on the first Amendment this afternoon I accused the Government of being tyrannical in this Bill and if, as I believe to be the case, that argument was applicable to that Amendment, it is doubly so, in the case of this Clause. My own belief is that the Government, and particularly their supporters, do not realise what will be the effect of rejecting this Clause. As the Bill stands, we are establishing, without many people realising it, a form of tyranny far greater than we should get under a technocracy. I say that because I believe the Minister is giving himself powers, outside Parliament, without any Parliamentary control, which will be just as divorced from Parliamentary control as would be the case if we had a full-blooded technocracy in this country.
9.15 p.m.
I am particularly concerned about this Amendment because in my constituency is a small engineering firm. It is a very proud firm which has served this country honourably in the war, when it was


making gun mountings for the Admiralty. It is at present engaged upon making steel railway wagons. If it were allowed to do so, it would be making far more for export than it does. I have no association with, or interest in, the firm, but I mention the firm because I think it is only right that hon. Members should realise that in their own constituencies they may be endangering small firms of that character, if they reject this Amendment from another place. They will be rendering that firm in my constituency for ever liable under the Bill to be taken over and completely controlled by the Steel Corporation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) mentioned the Steel Company of Wales. It is abundantly clear from its memorandum that that association is allowed to carry on, in addition to its own trade or business, any other trade, business, or employment, manufacturing or otherwise, which may seem to it capable of being conveniently carried on. Surely that memorandum gives power to the Minister to authorise the Corporation to include a far greater number of companies than will be included under the Bill as it stands?

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Nothing of the sort. The Corporation is not given any power to acquire any firm whatsoever beyond those set out in the Third Schedule.

Major Legge-Bourke: Yes, but the Corporation is given power, under Clause 2 (3):
with the consent in writing of the Minister, to carry on any other activities which, at the time when the consent is given, any publicly-owned company is authorised as aforesaid to carry on.
The Minister is misleading the House when he makes that intervention. It may be technically true to say that the Corporation has no power to take over any company specifically, but it can drive it out of business by competing with it.

Mr. J. Hynd: That is healthy competition.

Major Legge-Bourke: It can completely control the work that that firm is doing. That is almost worse than giving the Corporation direct power to take over the business by an affirmative order. At least we should know where we stand.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is the hon. and gallant Member really inviting the House to say that in his opinion and the opinion of his Friends it would be wrong to drive a firm out of business by competing with it?

Major Legge-Bourke: I am not saying anything of the kind. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who has already committed a discourtesy during these proceedings, is now trying, in his characteristic way, to mislead the House. What sort of competition will face that unfortunate company? The hon. Member knows that the Corporation would be in an immensely privileged position. To start off with, it would be financed at gilt-edged rates, possibly under a Treasury guarantee. It may be supplied with raw materials by other publicly-owned companies at preferential prices and on preferential terms. I could go on with a list of the privileges which the Corporation would have against unfortunate private companies.

Mr. J. Hynd: Is not the argument which is used from the other side that nationalised industries will have such tremendous costs that their prices will inevitably go up to tremendous heights? How then will the Corporation have an advantage in competing with a private firm?

Major Legge-Bourke: The hon. Member knows very well that the Corporation will have virtually complete control of the supply of raw steel, sheet steel and practically all the raw materials for the sort of firms about which I am talking. He knows very well that to expect a company under private enterprise to stand up against the whole might of the State, with the Minister in the position of a complete dictator without any control at all from Parliament, is to expect the impossible.
The truth of the matter is that apart from being doctrinaire, the Bill endangers the whole structure of democracy as we understand it. My hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn)—I think I have him right—said that most Governments who take power are apt to lose power by failing to continue to abide by the principles under which they took those powers. So far from the Government having principles on which they are taking powers, most of their supporters—I may know


the principles of the right hon. Gentleman—are doing it blindly, purely as a piece of Socialist legislation, as they think. What they are doing in fact is endangering one of the most valuable industries which we have ever had in our history, an industry upon which we depend more for our recovery than on any other industry, and at the same time—perhaps even more serious—taking away from this House the power which it should have over its Ministers. It is that which is, constitutionally, so dangerous.
I believe that even the right hon. Gentleman is not fully aware where he is taking us today. He is taking us down a path which leads inevitably to complete tyranny and to the loss of all we have tried to build up over the years in our Parliamentary democracy. Not merely is this House not grateful, not merely is this generation fearful of what he is doing, but we think he will impose upon future generations something, the greviousness of which, he has not the sense to see.

Sir P. Bennett: I am prompted to intervene because of a remark made by the Minister in an interruption. There have been suggestions about what the Minister would or would not be able to do. It would be far better to approach the problem from the point of view not of what he can do, but of what he cannot do. I should like the Minister to study the memoranda of the companies which it is proposed to take over. I should be very surprised to find that under those memoranda there was anything in the country which he could not do.
I have had something to do with the putting through of memoranda and articles of association, and I know how one proceeds. One gives one's lawyers instructions like these, "As regards articles, we know that we can go to our shareholders at any future date and, by resolution, we can get them altered,

but not so with memoranda. Therefore, in drafting the memorandum, please see to it that it is so wide that we never have to go to the courts to get it altered." What do the lawyers do? They lay out the lines of business on which one is proceeding and go into the connected and ancillary lines, and then wind up by going into the highways and by-ways, saying, "Anything else which, in the opinion of the directors, will be conducive to the interests of the company." That power is put into their hands and it is being put now into the hands of the Minister, enabling him to do anything he likes with the industry of this country.

As I have said before, I have considerable respect for the Minister of Supply. I sat next to the right hon. Gentleman the other night at dinner and told him what I thought, and he told me what he thought. We got on well together; I proposed his health, and did it with great pleasure. But we say that it is not wise to put into mortal hands powers of this description because we do not know how long the right hon. Gentleman will sit there, we do not know who will take his place, and we are giving statutory powers to the right hon. Gentleman and his successors to do anything they like. Could anything be more totalitarian than that—to put it in the way of some future Minister to do exactly what he likes without coming to Parliament? That is why I feel that the Minister and His Majesty's Government would be well advised to accept this Amendment which would safeguard the country and would remove the bogy, it may be a serious one, to which I have referred.

Mr. Whiteley: Mr. Whiteley rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 325; Noes, 169.

Division No. 221.
AYES
[9.27 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Austin, H. Lewis
Barstow, P. G.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Awbery, S. S.
Barton, C.


Albu, A. H.
Ayles, W. H.
Battley, J. R.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Bechervaise, A. E.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Bacon, Miss A.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Baird, J.
Benson, G.


Attewell, H. C.
Balfour, A.
Berry, H.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Beswick, F.




Bing, G. H. C.
Grierson, E.
Monslow, W.


Binns, J.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Moody, A. S.


Blenkinsop, A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Morley, R.


Blyton, W. R.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Boardman, H.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Bottomley, A. G.
Gunter, R. J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E)


Bowden, Fig. Offr. H. W.
Guy, W. H.
Mort, D. L.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Moyle, A.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hale, Leslie
Nally, W.


Bramall, E. A.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hardman, D. R.
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Brown, George (Belper)
Hardy, E. A.
Oldfield, W. H.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Harrison, J.
Oliver, G. H.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Orbach, M.


Burden, T. W.
Haworth, J.
Paget, R. T.


Burke, W. A.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Callaghan, James
Herbison, Miss M.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Carmichael, James
Hewitson, Capt M.
Pargiter, G. A.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hobson, C. R.
Parker, J.


Champion, A. J.
Holman, P.
Parkin, B. T.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Pearson, A.


Cluse, W. S.
Horabin, T. L.
Peart, T. F.


Coldrick, W.
Houghton, Douglas
Perrins, W.


Collick, P.
Hoy, J.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Collindridge, F.
Hubbard, T.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Collins, V. J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Popplewell, E.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'ton, W.)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Cook, T. F.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Pritt, D. N.


Cooper, G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Randall, H. E.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Ranger, J.


Cove, W. G.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Rankin, J.


Crawley, A.
Jay, D. P. T.
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Johnston, Douglas
Reeves, J.


Cullen, Mrs.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Daggar, G.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Rhodes, H.


Daines, P.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Richards, R.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Robens, A.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Keenan, W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Kenyon, C.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Robinson, Kenneth (St Pancras. N.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
King, E. M.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Deer, G.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Kinley, J.
Sargood, R.


Delargy, H. J.
Kirby, B. V.
Scollan, T.


Diamond, J.
Lang, G.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Dobbie, W.
Lavers, S.
Segal, Dr. S.


Dodds, N. N.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Donovan, T.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Sharp, Granville


Driberg, T. E. N.
Leonard, W.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Levy, B. W.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Dye, S.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Shurmer, P.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lindgren, G. S.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Logan, D. G.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Longden, F.
Simmons, C. J.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Lyne, A. W.
Skeffington, A. M.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McAdam, W.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Ewart, R.
McAllister, G.
Skinnard, F. W.


Farthing, W. J.
McEntee, V. La. T.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Fernyhough, E.
Mack, J. D.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Field, Capt. W. J.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Smith, S. H. (Hull. S. W)


Follick, M.
McKinlay, A. S.
Sorensen, R. W.


Foot, M. M.
McLeavy, F.
Sparks, J. A.


Forman, J. C.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Steele, T.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Freeman, J. (Watford)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Stokes, R. R.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)


Gibbins, J.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Stross, Dr. B.


Gibson, C. W.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Stubbs, A. E.


Gilzean, A.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Swingler, S.


Gooch, E. G.
Mellish, R. J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Goodrich, H. E.
Messer, F.
Symonds, A. L.


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mikardo, Ian.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Grenfell, D. R.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Grey, C. F.
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)







Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Weitzman, D.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Thurtle, Ernest
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Timmons, J.
West, D. G.
Willis, E.


Titterington, M. F.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Tolley, L.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Wigg, George
Wise, Major F. J.


Usborne, Henry
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Wilkes, L.
Woods, G. S.


Viant, S. P.
Wilkins, W. A.
Wyatt, W.


Walker, G. H.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Yates, V. F.


Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Willoy, O. G. (Cleveland)
Zilliacus, K.


Warbey, W. N.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)



Watkins, T. E.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Mr. Snow and Mr. George Wallace.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Harvey, Air-Comdre A. V.
Nutting, Anthony


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Haughton, S. G.
Odey, G. W.


Astor, Hon. M.
Head, Brig. A. H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Baldwin, A. E.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Osborne, C.


Barlow, Sir J.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Baxter, A. B.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Bennett, Sir P.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Pickthorn, K.


Birch, Nigel
Hope, Lord J.
Pitman, I. J.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hurd, A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Boothby, R.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Prescott, Stanley


Bower, N.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Raikes, H. V.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Keeling, E. H.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Kendall, W. D.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Renton, D.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Langford-Holt, J.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Butcher, H. W.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Carson, E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Challen, C.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Robinson, Ronald (Blackpool, S.)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Linstead, H. N.
Ropner, Col. L.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Cole, T. L.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Low, A. R. W.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Smithers, Sir W.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Spence, H. R.


Cuthbert, W. N.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Stewart J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
McFarlane, C. S.
Sutcliffe, H.


Donner, P. W.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Taylor, Vice-Adm E. A. (P'dd't'n, S)


Drayson, G. B.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Teeling, William


Drews, C.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Eccles, D. M.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Erroll, F. J.
Marples, A. E.
Touche, G. C.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Marsden, Capt. A.
Turton, R. H.


Fox, Sir G.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Fraser, H. C. [...] (Stone)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Walker-Smith, D.


Gage, C.
Maude, J. C.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Mellor, Sir J.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Gammans, L. D.
Molson, A. H. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Moore Lt.-Col. Sir T.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Glyn, Sir R.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Granville, E. (Eye)
Mullan, Lt. C. H.
York, C.


Gridley, Sir A.
Neill, W. F. (Belfast, N.)



Grimston, R. V.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Nicholson, G.
Mr. Studholme and


Harden, J. R. E.
Nield, B. (Chester)
Brigadier Mackeson.


Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Question put accordingly, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 324; Noes, 169.

Division No. 222.]
AYES
[9.43 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Lindgren, G. S.


Albu, A. H.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Logan, D. G.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Longden, F.


Alpass, J. H.
Ewart, R.
Lyne, A. W.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Farthing, W. J.
McAdam, W.


Attewell, H. C.
Fernyhough, E.
McAllister, G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Field, Capt. W. J.
McEntee, V. La. T.


Austin, H. Lewis
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Mack, J. D.


Awbery, S. S.
Follick, M.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Ayles, W. H.
Foot, M. M.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Forman, J. C.
McKinlay, A. S.


Bacon, Miss A.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McLeavy, F.


Baird, J.
Freeman, J. (Watford)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Balfour, A.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Barstow, P. G.
Gibbins, J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Barton, C.
Gibson, C. W.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Battley, J. R.
Gilzean, A.
Mann, Mrs. J.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Gooch, E. G.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Benson, G.
Goodrich, H. E.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Berry, H.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Mellish, R. J.


Beswick, F.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Messer, F.


Bing, G. H. C.
Grenfell, D. R.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Binns, J.
Grey, C. F.
Mikardo, Ian.


Blenkinsop, A.
Grierson, E.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.


Blyton, W. R.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.


Boardman, H.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Monslow, W.


Bottomley A. G.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Moody, A. S.


Bowden, Fig. Offr. H. W.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Morley, R.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl Exch'ge)
Gunter, R. J.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Guy, W. H.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Bramall, E. A.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hale, Leslie
Mort, D. L.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Moyle, A.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Nally, W.


Brown, George (Belper)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hardman, D. R.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hardy, E. A.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Burden, T. W.
Harrison, J.
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Burke, W. A.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Oldfield, W. H.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Haworth, J.
Oliver, G. H.


Callaghan, James
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Orbach, M.


Carmichael, James
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Paget, R. T.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Herbison, Miss M.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Champion, A. J.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hobson, C. R.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Cluse, W. S.
Holman, P.
Pargiter, G. A.


Coldrick, W.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Parker, J.


Collick, P.
Horabin, T. L.
Parkin, B. T.


Collindridge, F.
Houghton, Douglas
Pearson, A.


Collins, V. J.
Hoy, J.
Peart, T. F.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hubbard, T.
Perrins, W.


Cook, T. F.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Cooper, G.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'ton, W.)
Popplewell, E.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pritt, D. N.


Cove, W. G.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Crawley, A.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Randall, H. E.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Ranger, J.


Cullen, Mrs.
Jay, D. P. T.
Rankin, J.


Daggar, G.
Johnston, Douglas
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Daines, P.
Jones, H. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Reeves, J.


Davies, Edward (Burstem)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Rhodes, H.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Richards, R.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Keenan, W.
Robens, A.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kenyon, C.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Deer, G.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
King, E. M.
Robinson, Kenneth (St Pancras, N.)


Delargy, H. J.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Diamond, J.
Kinley, J.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Dobbie, W.
Kirby, B. V.
Sargood, R.


Dodds, N. N.
Lang, G.
Scollan, T.


Donovan, T.
Lavers, S.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Segal, Dr. S.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Leonard, W.
Sharp, Granville


Dye, S.
Levy, B. W.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)







Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Shurmer, P.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wigg, George


Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wilkes, L.


Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wilkins, W. A.


Simmons, C. J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Skeffington, A. M.
Thurtle, Ernest
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Timmons, J.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Skinnard, F. W.
Titterington, M. F.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Smith, C. (Colchester)
Tolley, L.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Usborne, Henry
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Sorensen, R. W.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Willis, E.


Sparks, J. A.
Viant, S. P.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Steele, T.
Walker, G. H.
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Stokes, R. R.
Warbey, W. N.
Wise, Major F. J.


Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Watkins, T. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Woods, G. S.


Stross, Dr. B.
Weitzman, D.
Wyatt, W.


Stubbs, A. E.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Yates, V. F.


Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Zilliacus, K.


Swingler, S.
West, D. G.



Sylvester, G. O.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Symonds, A. L.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Mr. Snow and Mr. George Wallace.




NOES


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Haughton, S. G.
Odey, G. W.


Astor, Hon. M.
Head, Brig. A. H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Baldwin, A. E.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Osborne, C.


Barlow, Sir J.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.


Baxter, A. B.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Bennett, Sir P.
Hope, Lord J.
Pickthorn, K.


Birch, Nigel
Hurd, A.
Pitman, I. J.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Boothby, R.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Prescott, Stanley


Bower, N.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Keeling, E. H.
Raikes, H. V.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Kendall, W. D.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Rayner, Brig. R.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Langford-Holt, J.
Renton, D.


Butcher, H. W.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Carson, E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Challen, C.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Linstead, H. N.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Ropner, Col. L.


Cole, T. L.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Low, A. R. W.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Smithers, Sir W.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Cuthbert, W. N.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Spence, H. R.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
McFarlane, C. S.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Donner, P. W.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Sutcliffe, H.


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Drayson, G. B.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S)


Drewe, C.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Teeling, William


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Eccles, D. M.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Erroll, F. J.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Marples, A. E.
Touche, G. C.


Fox, Sir G.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Turton, R. H.


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Walker-Smith, D.


Gage, C.
Maude, J. C.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Mellor, Sir J.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Gammans, L. D.
Molson, A. H. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Glyn, Sir R.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Granville, E. (Eye)
Mullan, Lt. C. H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gridley, Sir A.
Neill, W. F. (Belfast, N.)
York, C.


Grimston, R. V.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.



Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Nicholson, G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harden, J. R. E.
Nield, B. (Chester)
Commander Agnew and


Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Mr. Studholme.


Harvey, Air-Comdre A. V.
Nutting, Anthony

Clause 2.—(POWERS OF THE CORPORATION.)

Lords Amendments disagreed to: In page 3, line 26, leave out from "any" to end of line 30, and insert:
subsidiary of the Corporation is authorised to carry on and is not by any provision of this Act prohibited from carrying on.

In line 32, leave out "sole or main."

Lords Amendment: In line 33, leave out from second "any" to "or" in line 35, and insert:
subsidiary of the Corporation is authorised to carry on and is not by any provision of this Act prohibited from carrying on.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. C. Williams: rose—

Mr. Speaker: This Amendment was covered by the Closure. If any hon. Member wants to talk, I would point out that we have discussed it already and it would not be fair to go on discussing it now when it has been covered. As I said at the beginning, these three Amendments go together. Therefore, they were covered by the Closure. If necessary I will accept the Closure straight away.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 18, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
(3) The Corporation shall have power to carry on such other activities as shall have been specified in an order of the Minister, such order being subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

Mr. J. Jones: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The subsection as it left the House gave the Minister the right to give consent in writing to the Corporation to carry out such duties as he agreed to authorise. The Opposition may ask, of course, what are the activities which the Minister would agree to authorise or which he would give power to the Corporation to carry out. It will be observed that under the Bill, just prior to this particular subsection, the Corporation has unfettered power, which is not contested, to carry out research on a national basis and to render services common to the whole of the industry in the country.
It is matters arising from that research that we seek to give the Corpora-

tion power themselves to put into operation. If, for instance, it was found that as a result of this research there was something of tremendous advantage to the industry, or through the industry to the country, that could be operated by the Corporation for or on behalf of the country, then the Corporation should have power so to do by consent in writing from the Minister. My right hon. Friend would pay due regard and give very careful consideration to the request from the Corporation to carry out such work before authorising it. It may be argued that research should be left in the hands of individual companies, but we on this side of the House consider it right and proper that research should be carried out on a national basis, and that powers for research and other services common to the country should be given.
The Amendment seeks to compel my right hon. Friend to make an order which could be annulled by either of the two Houses. We believe that is wrong, and that it is right and proper that the Minister should have the right—after, as I have already said, careful consideration of this problem—to authorise the Corporation to proceed on matters which, as I have already indicated, could be, would be, and, indeed, should be of great value to the country as a whole. It has been argued previously today that a hostile other place could annul this order. I do not wish to proceed on these lines, but on the line that it is right and proper that this Corporation which is responsible to Parliament and to the Minister should have the right by consent in writing from the Minister to carry out the duties I have indicated.
It may also be argued—indeed, we expect it will be argued—arising from what has been said on the previous Amendment, that the memorandum of association and the articles of agreement between the companies give the Corporation the right to engage in all forms and methods of production. That, again is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend, or whoever may be the Minister when this Bill comes into operation. The House should have sufficient faith in the common sense of the Minister—[Interruption]—Yes, indeed. The Corporation would only engage itself in those things which would benefit the country through the iron and steel industry, and,


therefore, the Opposition need not worry itself unduly.
We agree that the articles of association give the Corporation the right to do that, and we would argue, as has been said from the other side, that what was considered good for private enterprise to put into their articles of association after careful thought could not be bad for a Corporation which will be working for and on behalf of the country, rather than for the pockets of individual shareholders.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Lyttelton: I had not intended to raise the same argument again until the Parliamentary Secretary had shown himself obdurate in this error. It is impossible for us on this side of the House to allow arguments of this kind to go unanswered, because they merely repeat in a more acute form exactly that attitude of mind to which we object. The Parliamentary Secretary said, as I understood his argument, that because the Corporation may require to carry on certain research activities, therefore it is necessary to strike out of the Bill altogether the negative procedure which we seek to insert and which has been inserted in another place. The argument was stated with an ingenuousness which amounted almost to ingenuity. He again reiterated: "Why should anybody worry? As long as we have a Socialist Minister everything will be quite all right. It is quite true that the powers given to the Corporation extend from every human activity to running a music hall or an hotel, but we can assure the House that it will not matter."
This is making a perfect farce of the Parliamentary procedure. This House is here in order to protect not the Executive from committing some act which is not covered by law, but the individual from the Executive invading every single part of human activities. To be treated to an argument like this is an insult to the intelligence of the House. We had intended to let this Amendment go, because we have traversed the ground very widely before, but after listening to the Parliamentary Secretary it is quite impossible for us to do other than divide the House. It is intolerable for us to be told that although the powers and the range of activities are unlimited, only by

ministerial discretion is any limit to be imposed. That position is untenable, and I shall ask my hon. Friends on this side to divide against this Amendment.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: The argument put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary fell into two parts. First, he put up this entirely spurious Aunt Sally about research. The main arguments were developed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton). It is suggested that under the new system of the nationalisers a superior form of research institutions will be set up. That is precisely where hon. Members opposite are entirely wrong. From a great many of the speeches of hon. Members opposite and from some of the speeches which were made two years ago on this subject and by some of the pamphlets written two years ago, one sees the abysmal ignorance which has led hon. Members opposite to produce this Bill at all. The fact remains that the research organisations set up by the British iron and steel organisations have no equal, precisely because they are independent. They are independent, to a large extent, even of the Iron and Steel Federation.
A very interesting document has been produced by the British Iron and Steel Federation, one of their issues of the Monthly Statistical Bulletin, which is devoted entirely to this subject of co-operative research in the steel industry. I would advise the Parliamentary Secretary to have a look at this and see how a flexible system which is set up here would be destroyed by the State clamping system which we would see if this Bill became law. Therefore, the first argument put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary, and indeed almost the only argument put forward by him, falls to the ground.
The second argument which the Parliamentary Secretary did not even touch upon, but which my right hon. Friend did refer to, was this: That one of the precise difficulties which we are finding in this whole question of nationalisation is the question of Parliamentary control. So far four or five large industries have been nationalised in this country. Every day from both sides of the House hon. Members are getting up and trying to raise questions about the administration of these industries, and again and again


they are being told, through the Table, that they cannot raise these matters. Only three days ago, if I may take an example, in Stafford I investigated the question of the nationalised railways running cheap excursions. I tried to raise the matter here, but it was not possible because it was a matter of day-to-day administration. I found that, locally, trains full of passengers could be run at 10s. 6d. from Stafford to Blackpool for the fireworks, while the normal rate is 29s. 6d. return. That is pin-pointing the inefficiency of the nationalised system, which this House can never get down to. That is the point which is raised here—the question of Parliamentary control.
Hon. Members opposite may say that the negation of an order is a clumsy method. If hon. Members opposite would cast their minds back as to how this Bill came into birth, they will realise it was one of the most clumsy miscarriages of legislation ever seen. They can recall how two years ago this matter was put up by Government supporters. There was going to be a clear definition that certain sections of the iron and steel industry were to be nationalised. Then it was found that the scheme could not be put into force, and the unfortunate Minister of Supply of the day was fired and the Government thought again. There was pressure inside the Cabinet from the dessentient group to carry through this Bill at all costs. Nowadays that group is crying, "Work, independence, Socialism" in that order, but two years ago the order was reversed, and it was "Socialism, quasi independence and work"—the latter last.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must keep to the Amendment. He is making a speech which applies to the Bill as a whole. We are considering one Amendment.

Mr. Fraser: I shall return to the Amendment. The question of Parliamentary control arises here. As my hon. Friends have pointed out in the last Amendment, there is this question of the ability of the Government through the Corporation to go extremely wide, and, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett), to go to any length at all. The power in this Clause can be used, and the Corporation

can go in for the manufacture of every type of every conceivable form of activity. There could be an invasion of private industry and of private manufacture, including the work of many small firms, and we on this side are opposed to this most clumsy legislative instrument to achieve an organisation the effect of which was never before dreamt of by Parliament in its wildest moments.
Under these articles of association many things can be entered into. The range runs the whole gamut from A to Z. Think of the whole range of activities which can be undertaken, such as coal haulage, the galvanising, hotels, housing societies, metal spraying, road transport, shipowning, road vehicle components, cast iron products, agricultural equipment and many others in a long range, which are not mentioned here, but which are mentioned probably in the list of the articles of association of these various companies. For the Parliamentary Secretary to put this idea that because the industry is to be nationalised it would mean better centralised research is skirting round, and trying to escape from, the whole issue as set out in this Amendment.
If the Amendment is accepted there will be a resistance, although peaceful, to the painful and disastrous invasion of the huge realms of British industry and to the eventual destruction of the faith of thousands of people—80 per cent. of our national production—in the fact that they can go on manufacturing without fear of unfair competition. It is a fear which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) tried to pooh-pooh. As one goes further through the Bill, however, one finds it is possible for the Government companies, by the use of that magical formula of taking their accounts one year with another, to subsidise here, to rob there and to carry out what my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) has called this "brutal" form of pillage and destruction of our free and still fairly ship-shape economy.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: To see what has been done it is important to look at both the original Clause and the Amendment. The original Clause provides that the Corporation can engage in certain activities provided they have the consent of the Minister in writing. The Amendment enables the Corporation to engage


in those activities provided they have the consent of the Minister by order, that order being subject to negative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
The Minister's defence is that he should be able to give that consent without an order in these activities of research—research is a very necessary and laudable thing. But the Corporation itself has been appointed by the Minister with great care, being a highly responsible body, so why should it not engage in research without the leave of the Minister at all? Why should it be necessary for this highly responsible body to have the consent of the Minister in writing? There can be only one reason for it—that the Minister desires to keep control completely in his own hands. On the question of whether to engage in research, surely no better body could determine that matter than the Corporation itself. The Minister will have to take its views into consideration.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The Corporation is entitled to undertake research and common services without coming to the Minister. It has to come to the Minister only when it wants to undertake some industrial project.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: My illustration was given by the Parliamentary Secretary in his speech, and it is within the recollection of the House. The one difference between the Amendment and the original Clause is that under the Amendment the same powers can only be given by order. Surely in a matter of this sort that power should be reserved in the last resort to Parliament itself; it should be given by order, and the absolute power should not be given to the Minister. I do not want to repeat the argument I advanced on the first Amendment, but this is what we are fighting the whole of the way through this Bill. It is not really a Bill for the nationalisation of the steel industry; it is a replacement of powers Bill, and the important thing here is where the power will rest. It is a change of the form of industry, a change of the form of Government and of society. That is why this power is always reserved in each Clause to the Minister.

10.15 p.m.

Sir William Darling: I can scarcely believe that hon. Members opposite recognise how widely revolutionary is this proposal. I know many hon. Members opposite, and I have the advantage of knowing many of their private views and opinions, and I understand that they are wedded to the principle of State ownership of the steel trade. But when it comes to working out the details, the right hon. Gentleman ought to know from the murmurings behind him that they are appalled, aghast and astonished by some of these things. His Majesty's Government are telling the House of Commons that the single signature of the Minister is more important than the decision of the House of Commons. That goes a long way towards the dictatorship which we fear.
There are, as shown in Clause 1 (1, c), provisions that the chairman and not more than ten other members, meeting perhaps on a pleasant afternoon or evening, may go and cajole the Minister—somebody more susceptible than the present Minister perhaps. They may go to him and say: "Old boy, will you give us your consent in writing?" On that trivial procedure the Corporation shall be able to acquire, simply upon the consent in writing of the Minister. They will be able to carry on any other activities which, at the time of the consent, any publicly-owned company is authorised to carry on.
Such powers have never been given to any single individual before. It reminds me of the way in which some of our retail businesses were conducted in days gone by. The lady shop assistant would call out to the shop walker, "Sign, Sir," and he would stride up to the counter and sign her check-book and all was then in order. This power is to be given by the Minister, not at a formal meeting but in the Lobby of the House of Commons or as he is entering his car, or perhaps in his private house. He will give his consent in writing. The proposal put forward by the Opposition is a more democratic and reasonable one and more in keeping with the sound practice of administration. It is that such procedure as is proposed, such experiments and developments as the Corporation plan, shall not be entered upon lightly but after full consideration


by the Minister. He shall think over what is required. Indeed, it is recommended that after due consideration with his advisers he shall come to the House of Commons and ask for approval. That seems to be trusting the people and is in keeping with democratic procedure.
What are His Majesty's Government going to do? Large-scale businesses always resist the tendency to find that their research organisation is running them and not they the research organisation. These developments, which are to be set up on the writing of the Minister, may well run away with the Governing body. I have seen research organisations conducted by brilliant men whose ideas were so far above those of everybody else that their employers could not understand them. The man might get some £10,000 a year, and at the end of the year may have produced no result. He asks for another £10,000 for another year. It may be five or six years before we discover that he is leading us up the garden path and is producing nothing. How much more likely is it to happen in the case of the Bill.
I cannot think that Government supporters recognise the enormous powers which lie concealed in these four lines in which the Minister, for the first time in history, will give consent to what may be the death warrant of British industry, because it concerns its life blood. The consent can be given by any Minister yet unknown, in the bosom of time yet unfolded. He shall authorise the Corporation to embark upon large-scale enterprises of incalculable character ranging far and wide over anything. It may be a trivial thing in connection with canteens or cinemas, but it may concern acute problems of metallurgy.
Receiving these challenges to his acuteness, the Minister, being precariously poised in the Ministry, as he may well be, and anxious to be on good terms with the chairman of his Corporation, will sign these chits. He will become a chit signer, and British industry will suffer. I have never heard of any business of any kind in any country of this magnitude, with these ramifications and with these extraordinary potentialities conducted in this singularly frivolous and lighthearted fashion. I defy the Minister to deny that in future a Minister may

sign away not so much the responsibilities of his research department but the essence, strength and vitality of British industry.

Mr. Scollan: It is rather astonishing to hear the Opposition speak about an attack on democracy. They have not read the Amendment. It says:
The Corporation shall have power to carry on such other activities as shall have been specified in an order of the Minister, such order being subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
That is the most revolutionary proposal brought before this House since 1945. We are being asked to abrogate the powers of the Commons and to hand over the sole right to the other place to annul an order. How can any hon. Member opposite preach about democracy and championship of the House of Commons when this proposal is made? The Commons fought to have the sole right to determine what money would be spent. On this occasion an Amendment is brought forward transferring the power from the Commons to another place. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course. One cannot read anything else into it.

Sir W. Darling: The hon. Member is not making a very good case for the native intelligence for which his country is famed. If he directs his attention to the word "either," he will see that he is talking nonsense.

Mr. Scollan: The hon. Member has not read it properly. The Commons might pass an order, but another place might pass a resolution annulling it, and it would not therefore be passed. The words are:
Being subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
That does not mean both Houses. One or other of the two Houses can annul it. The Commons can approve it, and then another place can throw it out. I ask hon. Members opposite if such a proposal has ever been brought forward before. [Laughter.] I wish that laughing gas had not penetrated to some of the benches opposite. We are being asked to annul the Parliament Act and to give back the power given to us in the Parliament Act to insist on what is


passed in this House becoming the law of the land. If any hon. Member opposite talks through his hat about revolutionary proposals, all I have to say is that I will bring up some old penny revolutionary pamphlets and give him a free education on those.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I hope to persuade the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) that the proposals contained in this Amendment are hardly as revolutionary as he thinks. The proposal really is to make this use of the power by the Corporation, and its authorisation by the Minister, subject to the ordinary procedure common to all Statutory Instruments which this Government have passed and which any previous Government have passed in any respect whatsoever, and subject also to the milder form of that annulment, namely, the annulment by negative Prayer instead of the confirmation by positive Prayer. The idea that an hon. Member opposite could have remained a Member of this House for four years without its having dawned upon him that in every case where an order is made by a Minister it is subject to annulment by either House of Parliament is a matter of such astonishing ignorance that I hope his constituents in a few months will study his suitability to continue to represent them.
I listened hard to the explanation of the Government attitude put forward by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. In rising from this place on the Liberal Bench, I wish to make it clear that I do not speak as Leader of the Liberal Party. None the less, I hope that I shall make my meaning plain. The Minister did not make his meaning plain; indeed, I could only describe his explanation as such that, on the principle of lucus a non lucendo, I call him bright because he seldom shines. The explanations put forward by the Minister are as follow. First, he says that he wants power for the Corporation to research. That is what he told the House, but I looked painstakingly at the Bill—and so apparently did the Minister, to put him right, although he did not like to make it plain that he was putting his own subordinate right—and I found that the provision giving power to research came in under subsection (3) which it is proposed to

amend by this amendment, but under subsection (2)—

Mr. J. Jones: If the hon. Gentleman will read carefully tomorrow what was actually said, he will find that I referred to the power already in the Bill—"prior to subsection (3)" were my actual words. In no way did I indicate to the House that it was necessary to get power to enter into research. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I can only refer hon. Members to what I said. It will be reported tomorrow morning. The hon. Member for Oxford will find that I went on to say that it was to implement the research powers already given in the Bill in a national way for the national benefit—

Mr. Hogg: If I do find that in HANSARD tomorrow morning, I shall probably complain that it has been altered from what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. J. Jones: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, because I give the hon. Member an explanation which he is bound to accept if he reads tomorrow's OFFICIAL REPORT is it correct for him to impute that I would dare to seek to alter what I said?

Mr. Hogg: I am not aware, Mr. Speaker, that I made any imputation. I only said that, if something happened which has not yet happened, I should probably take a certain attitude which I have not yet taken. I heard the hon. Gentleman talking about research, and although I am quite prepared to accept his word for it that what he intended to convey was something different, I am not prepared to take his word for it that what he succeeded in conveying was what he said, because I do not believe that there is a single Member of this House who really got the idea which the hon. Gentleman now says he was trying to convey. I am quite convinced that he does not always succeed in conveying his meaning, but this much at any rate the House can now take for granted, and that is that any argument based upon the desirability of obtaining power for research is completely done away with. It has been withdrawn, if it was ever put forward, and there is no need in this Clause for power to research. There is a power to carry on other activities.
10.30 p.m.
The point at issue is whether or not that power, or that power of authorisa-


tion, exercised by the Minister should or should not be subject to annulment by negative Prayer. That is the narrow point on which we are. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not withdraw this. With a good deal of bluster he began to argue that the Minister ought to be allowed to do what he liked without interference from this House. I think that was a very poor way of expressing his gratitude to the docile Lobby fodder who have been following the Government into the Lobby on negative Prayers for four years now. I think he might have paid a tribute at any rate to their diligence, if not to their independence. After some experience of procedure by negative Prayer, my only question is whether it affords sufficient protection for the House under the working of the present party system. What possible disadvantage can it be to the Minister, with that well-oiled, disciplined majority, to have a few extra minutes—

Mr. Scollan: Does that reference mean that we have a rusty, creaking Opposition?

Mr. Hogg: No, I only meant that the majority was well-oiled. What additional disadvantage can it be to a Minister to call into being this wonderful machine and ask it to stay up a few extra minutes while my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) moves a negative Prayer, with such public spirit as we know he always shows, but without any measure of success at all? My hon. Friend was once successful. It is a very great tribute to his Parliamentary talent that, despite the party system, he has succeeded to that extent.
It seems to me that the Minister failed to do other than re-assert a case for which no previous argument had been put forward. I think we are entitled to have a little more in support of his argument than this. However, it strikes me that the Minister has perhaps not sufficiently studied the merits of this Amendment from his own point of view. It seems to me the Amendment as passed by another place is actually more favourable to the Minister than the text which he seeks to preserve in the Bill as it left this House.
In the Bill as it left us, the powers which, under this subsection, can be exercised by the Corporation are powers

limited, even when consent is given, to those which any publicly-owned company is authorised, as aforesaid—that is, in the previous provisions—to carry on. But that limitation is not questioned in the Lords Amendment, and I am wondering why it is that the Minister has spurned this as a gift which has been proffered from the Opposition, giving him, subject, of course, to the superior control of this House, better power of authorisation than he thinks. For these reasons, I cannot help thinking that neither of the two speeches we have heard from the Government side this evening—one from the Parliamentary Secretary, the other from the hon. Member for West Renfrew—was of sufficient weight to persuade us to withdraw this Amendment.

Mr. J. Hynd: I am sure that many of my hon. Friends, like myself, have been rather surprised at the spate of oratory we have had regarding the methods of the democratic conduct of business. There has been so much said about it from the other side of the House that one would have assumed that hon. Members opposite were defending some fundamental law of production which this Socialist Government is trying to upset. We know very well, of course, that this democratic procedure for carrying out industrial activities is something which does not exist in private industry. We had the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) telling us what happens when private companies are seeking powers. When they are drawing up their articles, they do not specify precisely what they want, but say, "Let us draw them as widely as possible so that we can do anything we like." We know that that is common practice.
What puzzles me is, if this is common practice in private enterprise, and if, that being so, we have survived, why should not it work in the case of Government enterprise? If, again, it is permissible for private individuals, who are operating for no other purpose than to extract the maximum amount of profit from their activities—about which I do not complain—why is it so dangerous and antisocial for the Government, on behalf of the people of the country, to do the same thing?

Sir P. Bennett: The hon. Member must see a difference between a private


company risking a limited amount of capital and a Government board doing it with taxpayers' money, and without any limit whatever.

Mr. Hynd: I was dealing with the point that, if it is moral for an individual to do that, when he is, in fact, exploiting the community—[Interruption.]—There is nothing wrong with the word; it is a question of the emphasis put upon it. If it is permissible for an individual to do it, why is it immoral for the community collectively to organise its own activities on the same basis? One hon. Member opposite said that it is no uncommon thing in private industry to employ an eminent research chemist or scientist and to pay him a considerable sum of money for a period of, say, 12 months and, although he produces no results in that time, to pay him for another 12 months, saying that one must not expect sudden results from research. The man's productions it is said, might be good next year, and the company carries him on. Why not? One cannot expect him to be turning out inventions every year, or every month, mechanically. That is the reason why it is acceptable in private enterprise, and I know that many hon. Members opposite would agree with that. Why, then, should it become a danger if the Government engage in the same kind of investment?

Mr. Hogg: I thought one thing about which we had agreed was that research had nothing to do with subsection (3) and was already authorised in subsection (2).

Mr. Hynd: I agree; but that matter was raised by an hon. Member opposite, who mentioned this as illustrating the kind of thing affecting an example under this Clause. But on the arguments which have been put forward there is no evidence that there is anything sought in for the Corporation in this Clause which is not already, in fact, operating in private enterprise and is defended by its champions on the other side of the House. What they have done is to claim that no new activity may be taken on by the Corporation, however necessary or however urgent it may be considered to be, until a shareholders' meeting is called—until the House of Commons has gone through the procedure of the negative

Prayer and an order has been upon the Table for the necessary period.
These are the people who complain about the lack of initiative and the lack of speed in getting things done under Government control. If we suggested that if any private company wished to extend its business, or to take up a new line of business within the broad terms of its charter, such as were referred to by the hon. Member for Edgbaston, it must call a meeting of all shareholders, I do not think we would have the support of hon. Members opposite. That, again, would be regarded as holding up proceedings; and anything which held up activity of that sort would be regarded as bureaucratic.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that, in order to have powers, it is necessary to go through a very long procedure to obtain sanction from the courts.

Mr. Hynd: The hon. Gentleman could not have been present when his hon. Friend let it slip out that the powers can be drawn so widely that anything that one likes can be done in private enterprise. I have listened to a spate of oratory by hon. Gentlemen opposite about injecting democracy into this business, although they decry such democracy in private enterprise. There is no doubt that the arguments made justify the original Clause in the Bill and destroy whatever case there may be for this Amendment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not know what the friends of the right hon. Gentleman who sit on the Front Bench below him—those who are daily appealing to the spirit of the merchant adventurers—will think of his remarks about private industrialists exploiting the population. That is a matter of internal concern, too delicate perhaps for one to pursue; but I did feel that his comments disclosed a complete ignorance on his part of delegated legislation procedure, quite apart from an ignorance of the Amendment from another place. He does not seem to appreciate that in the Bill as it was when it left this House, the Corporation did not have the freedom he says it ought to have in order to indulge in these further activities. It could only do so with the Minister's consent.
Because the right hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the purpose of the Amendment, I would explain that all it seeks to do is to ensure that the Minister's action in giving his consent shall be the subject to Parliamentary control, and, with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, his argument about complete freedom for the Corporation to do something, whether is good or bad, on the merits, is completely irrelevant to the discussion of an Amendment dealing with the subject of Parliamentary control.
He obviously did not understand, either, the method of that control. He said that the Corporation could not proceed with these activities until a meeting of the national shareholders was held in this House and the matter was fully discussed. If he understood the procedure of negative Resolutions, he would know that the order takes effect as soon as made or on such date as the Minister may decide. It is laid on the Table, and is annulled only if this House carries a Resolution against it. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, the suggestion that there is the slightest scintilla of delay involved in the application of this Amendment is complete nonsense.

Mr. J. Hynd: First, I should like to correct the hon. Gentleman; I am not "right hon." What I rise to say is that there is a procedure for negative Resolutions; I agree with him. But there is surely a difference between the speed with which a proposition can be made, and given effect to, by the Minister, and the speed with which an order can be drawn up in the terms necessary for it to be laid before this House so that the House may discuss it on a Prayer.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for having, quite inadvertently, promoted him. If he has any experience of the form in which many orders are laid there will be found no internal evidence of any delay in the drafting of these instruments. The only possibility of delay which can arise is that it is possible that the Minister might be more hesitant to give his consent if he knew that this was a matter which could be challenged on the Floor of the House rather than could be done behind closed doors. That is the only possibility of delay, and if delay arises from that point of view, I suggest that is very salutary and wholesome.
10.45 p.m.
I should like to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) in reassuring the natural anxieties of the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan). The hon. Member felt that there were many possibilities of revolutionary changes in this Amendment. I have no doubt that he supported the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1946. I hope he does not dissent and he will be reassured to know that that Act contained precisely the same provision as this, the only difference being that it extended over the whole sphere of our national economic life and was not confined to one industry. If he needs further reassurance, there remains the undisputed fact that during four years of the present Parliament another place has never annulled a Statutory Instrument.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary made a speech quite unworthy of his Parliamentary reputation. His argument was that the House would prefer to trust the Minister. If that is so, it is not an argument against this Amendment, because if the House trusts the Minister in this matter, the House will refuse to annul the order. Therefore, this appeal to trust the Minister does not amount to an appeal to trust the Minister but a preference for trusting the Minister in secret to trusting him in public.
One objection to the Bill as it stands is that the consent that the Minister gives in writing for the extended activity need not necessarily be disclosed to the House. There is no provision for its being laid on the Table or for publicity. Therefore, the Minister's responsibility may turn out to be nugatory, because no one may at the material time know what he is doing. Whereas if an order has to be made and tabled, there is the certainty of full publicity being given to the proceedings.
It is conceded by the very nature of subsection (3) that an extension of these activities is a major matter which cannot be safely entrusted to the Corporation's unfettered discretion. It is accepted as a major matter on which the Minister's decision is required. I cannot see, if that is so, why the Minister should not say it is a matter on which the Minister's discretion should be submitted to direct challenge on the Floor of the House. It


is admittedly a major matter and a matter for the Minister to decide, so why should he not decide in a manner which can immediately be challenged on the Floor of the House?
If, even at this stage, the Minister does not indicate a willingness to accept the view that this is in the true sense a democratic procedure, it will be very clear that the right hon. Gentleman has been infected with the ideas the Chancellor of the Exchequer put forward 16 years ago, that detailed control over the industry of this country was not a matter with which the House of Commons need be concerned, but a matter to be dealt with by the Minister and his staff in private.

Mr. Scollan: Will the hon. Member clear up the point in regard to democratic procedure? Is it democratic that another place should be able to annul an order, despite the fact that they are able to do it?

Mr. Henry Strauss: I am very much puzzled by the Government's resistance to this Amendment. It seems to me that they would lose nothing that they really need, and would show respect to this House, if they accepted this Amendment instead of advising the House to reject it. I want to say a word about the Parliamentary Secretary's speech, and I would say quite frankly in his favour, in contrast with what has been said by some of my hon. Friends, that I did not understand him quite in the way they did. Perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong. What I thought he said was this. Having called our attention to the powers the Corporation had to conduct research, he then said that, as a result of that research, occasionally they might want to do something themselves. I want to say that in fairness to the hon. Member because that is how I understood him.
Where I completely agree with the way all my hon. Friends had understood him—and I think he will agree with us that we understood him rightly—is that he seemed to think that the powers that the Government were seeking to retain under subsection (3) were in some way limited and that the powers conferred by the subsection might have to be used on rare occasions as the result of something

that research showed to be desirable. If he reads that subsection he will find that there are no words of limitation of any kind whatever. The result of that is that, if we leave subsection (3) as it now stands, which the Lords proposes to delete, we shall enable the Corporation to do anything whatever. I challenge the Minister to point out anything which they would not be able to do under subsection (3)—with the consent in writing of the Minister.
I agree with the speech just made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that there is no guarantee whatsoever that any publicity will attach to the Minister's consent. The Minister can enable the Corporation to do anything of any kind whatsoever provided it is to be found in the articles of association of any of the companies he is taking over. He can enable the Corporation to do anything whatsoever by a note in writing of which this House obtains no knowledge. I am not in the least surprised that that has the enthusiastic support of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). It is part of the very basis on which the Communist Party are enthusiastically supporting this Bill. There is no difficulty whatsoever in understanding his enthusiasm.
I come to a point which has not yet been made in this discussion and I hope that the Minister, when he replies will deal with it. How does he reconcile the advice that the Parliamentary Secretary has now given to the House to reject this Amendment with what he himself said in Standing Committee when the matter was before it. He then drew a very great contrast between what he desired the holding company, that is to say, the Corporation, to be able to do and what he desired the publicly-owned companies to be able to do. These are his actual words:
It is not our intention that the Corporation should itself normally operate iron and steel or ancillary works, but circumstances might arise such as I have suggested—setting up a pilot plant for doing some important work outside the laboratory—where it might well be done better by the Corporation than by one of the companies whose shares it owns. It is for that narrow purpose that we say it is desirable not to limit the Corporation to purely holding company functions but rather that it should possess those powers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 19th Jan. 1949; c. 374.]


I call the attention of the House to the words "it is for that narrow purpose." In subsection (3) of the Bill as it stands, no statutory effect is given to the intention of using it "for that narrow purpose." I suggest that it is obviously necessary either for the Minister to amend this subsection in some way to carry out his own declaration, that what he wanted was something to use for a narrow purpose, or else to accept an Amendment, such as the Lords have inserted, providing some Parliamentary control.
I think the House is entitled to an answer to these points: on what grounds does the Minister invite the House to attach no importance whatever to these words which he uttered in Committee and similar words uttered by another Minister in another place? I ask him why he should wish to enable anything to be done by the Corporation itself merely by a note in writing which he signs and to which no publicity is given. I ask him how he can possibly justify the absence of limitation in these words and the absence of Parliamentary control? I believe this Amendment with which we are now concerned is one of the most important we shall have to consider during the night. It brings to the very forefront, if the Minister insists on rejecting it, that what the Government desire is naked power to be used without Parliamentary control. Let there be no doubt whatever that, if no answer is given to any of these points that I and my hon. Friends have raised, it is the only conclusion that can be reached.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I have been asked a question by the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) and I think I can answer him in a sentence or two. He suggested that there is some conflict between what I said in Committee, in describing what I had in mind with regard to these powers, and the words that are now in the Bill. I do not think there is any conflict. It will be remembered that when the Bill was introduced, there was no clear definition in it of the powers of the Corporation and of those of the publicly-owned companies. It was generally felt by hon. Members in the Committee—and the Government shared the view fully—that the real purpose of the Corporation would be to a holding

company and it should not normally engage in trading activities.
It was suggested that words should be incorporated in the Bill carrying out what was the general intention. We agreed to do that and amended the Bill accordingly, making it clear that the powers of the Corporation should normally be confined to research and to providing any common services for the publicly-owned companies. We felt that this might be too limiting because, as I said in Committee, a pilot plant might need to be set up to do a certain amount of manufacturing and to carry out certain small activities, and it was for that purpose that we desired to give some flexibility in this matter and to enable the Corporation to do that type of manufacturing work. It is impossible to define this in words.
We do not know what the type of manufacturing will be and so it is an utterly impossible thing to do. We have put in words saying that, with the consent of the Minister, the Corporation shall be entitled to carry out such other activities as the publicly-owned companies can carry out. It is true that this definition is wide, but there is no possible way of stating more strictly by words in the Bill the purposes we have in mind which would not rule out some proper and legitimate activities by the Corporation on behalf of the industry. It is for that reason that the words appear in the Bill. I suggest that they do not in any way conflict with what I said in Committee, and I still maintain that the purpose here is only to limit the Corporation to certain narrow activities along the line I have suggested.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman said that there is no limitation at all in the words in the Bill, but there is a limitation in his own mind. If there is no limitation in the Bill, is that not an argument for ensuring publicity and Parliamentary control?

Mr. Whiteley: Mr. Whiteley rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 322; Noes, 174.

Division No. 223.]
AYES
[11.2 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Lindgren, G. S.


Albu, A. H.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Logan, D. G.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Longden, F.


Alpass, J. H.
Ewart, R.
Lyne, A. W.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Fernyhough, E.
McAdam, W.


Attewell, H. C.
Field, Capt. W. J.
McAllister, G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McEntee, V. La. T.


Austin, H. Lewis
Follick, M.
Mack, J. D.


Awbery, S. S.
Foot, M. M.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Ayles, W. H.
Forman, J. C.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull N. W.)


Bacon, Miss A.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McKinlay, A. S.


Baird, J.
Freeman, J. (Watford)
McLeavy, F.


Balfour, A.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Gallacher, W.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Barstow, P. G.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Barton, C.
Gibbins, J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Battley, J. R.
Gibson, C. W.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Gilzean, A.
Mann, Mrs. J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Benson, G.
Gooch, E. G.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N)


Berry, H.
Goodrich, H. E.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Beswick, F.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Bing, G. H. C.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mayhew, C. P.


Binns, J.
Grenfell, D. R.
Mellish, R. J.


Blenkinsop, A.
Grey, C. F.
Messer, F.


Blyton, W. R.
Grierson, E.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Boardman, H.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mikardo, Ian.


Bottomley, A. G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R.


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mitchison, G. R.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Monslow, W.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Gunter, R. J.
Moody, A. S.


Bramall, E. A.
Guy, W. H.
Morley R.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Haire, John E. (Wyoombe)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield. C.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hale, Leslie
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Brown, George (Belper)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Mort, D. L.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Moyle, A.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Nally, W.


Burden, T. W.
Hardman, D. R.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Burke, W. A.
Hardy, E. A.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Harrison, J.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Callaghan, James
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Carmichael, James
Haworth, J.
O'Brien, T.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Oldfield, W. H.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Oliver, G. H.


Champion, A. J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Orbach, M.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Paget, R. T.


Cocks, F. S.
Hobson, C. R.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Coldrick, W.
Holman, P.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Collick, P.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Pargiter, G. A.


Collindridge, F.
Horabin, T. L.
Parker, J.


Collins, V. J.
Houghton, Douglas
Parkin, B. T.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hoy, J.
Pearson, A.


Cook, T. F.
Hubbard, T.
Peart, T. F.


Cooper, G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Perrins, W.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'ton, W.)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Cove, W. G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Price, M. Philips


Crawley, A.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Pritt, D. N.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Proctor, W. T.


Cullen, Mrs.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Daggar, G.
Jay, D. P. T.
Randall, H. E.


Daines, P.
Johnston, Douglas
Rankin, J.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Reeves, J.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Rhodes, H.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Richards, R.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Keenan, W.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kenyon, C.
Robens, A.


Deer, G.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
King, E. M.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Delargy, H. J.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Robinson, Kenneth (St Pancras. N.)


Diamond, J.
Kinley, J.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Dobbie, W.
Kirby, B. V.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Dodds, N. N.
Lang, G.
Sargood, R.


Donovan, T.
Lavers, S.
Scollan, T.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Scott-Elliot, W.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Segal, Dr. S.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Leonard, W.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Dye, S.
Levy, B. W.
Sharp, Granville


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)







Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wigg, George


Shurmer, P.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wilkes, L.


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wilkins, W. A.


Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Thurtle, Ernest
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Simmons, C. J.
Timmons, J.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Skeffington, A. M.
Titterington, M. F.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Tolley, L.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Smith, C. (Colchester)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Usborne, Henry
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Snow, J. W.
Viant, S. P.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Sorensen, R. W.
Walker, G. H.
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


Sparks, J. A.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Steele, T.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Wise, Major F. J.


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Warbey, W. N.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Stokes, R. R.
Watkins, T. E.
Woods, G. S.


Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Wyatt, W.


Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)
Weitzman, D.
Yates, V. F.


Stross, Dr. B.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Younger Hon. Kenneth


Stubbs, A. E.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)



Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
West, D. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Swingler, S.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)
Mr. Popplewell and


Sylvester, G. O.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Mr. Richard Adams.


Symonds, A. L.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.





NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Granville, E. (Eye)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Gridley, Sir A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Astor, Hon. M.
Grimston, R. V.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Barlow, Sir J.
Harden, J. R. E.
Nicholson, G.


Baxter, A. B.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Nield, B. (Chester)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Bennett, Sir P.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Odey, G. W.


Birch, Nigel
Haughton, S. G.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Head, Brig. A. H.
Osborne, C.


Boothby, R.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Bower, N.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hollis, M. C.
Pickthorn, K.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Hope, Lord J.
Pitman, I. J.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Howard, Hon. A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hurd, A.
Prescott, Stanley


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.



Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Butcher, H. W.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Raikes, H. V.


Carson, E.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Challen, C.
Keeling, E. H.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Channon, H.
Kendall, W. D.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Renton, D.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Langford-Holt, J.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Cole, T. L.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Robinson, Roland


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Linstead, H. N.
Ropner, Col. L.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Low, A. R. W.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Smithers, Sir W.


De la Bère, R.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Spence, H. R.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Donner, P. W.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Drayson, G. B.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Studholme, H. G.


Drewe, C.
McFarlane, C. S.
Sutcliffe, H.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Eccles, D. M.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Teeling, William


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Erroll, F. J.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Fox, Sir G.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Marlowe A. A. H.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Marples, A. E.
Touche, G. C.


Gage, C.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Turton, R. H.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Maude, J. C.
Walker-Smith, D.


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Molson, A. H. E.
Walt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Glyn, Sir R.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)







White, Sir D. (Fareham)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


White, J. B. (Canterbury)
York, C.
Major Conant and


Williams, C. (Torquay)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)
Brigadier Mackeson


Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Question put accordingly, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 324; Noes, 174.

Clause 3.— [GENERAL DUTY OF THE CORPORATION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 43, leave out from first "the" to "and" in line 44 and insert:
principal activities of the Corporation and of the publicly-owned companies.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I think it would probably be for the convenience of the House if we took together this Amendment, the one in line 44, and the following one in page 5, line 5, together, because they all hang together, and would be unintelligible if they were taken separately. I propose, therefore, to discuss the three Amendments together because they are all Amendments to one Clause, and indeed the two later ones were moved as consequential Amendments on Report stage, in the other place, after the first had been moved in the Committee stage. They cannot intelligently be discussed separately.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: On a point of Order. It will not have escaped the notice of the House that each debate has been brought to an end by the Chief Patronage Secretary moving the Closure. This is very unfair to those who want to take part in the Debate. Should not the interval of time be at least three times as long?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): This is a matter for the House. I suggest that it would obviously be for the convenience of the House to discuss the three Amendments together, with separate Divisions if desired.

Mr. P. Roberts: I should like to know how the Amendment in page 5, line 5, can be taken with the other two. It is on a different point altogether. I should have thought it could hardly be for the

convenience of the House to take this with the other two.

Mr. Strauss: This Amendment follows on the first one. The purpose of that Amendment is to make the Corporation responsible for the economical supply, at appropriate prices and so on, not only of the products of Second Schedule activities as the Bill stated, but of all the principal activities of the Corporation. That Amendment was inserted in the Committee stage, and it was realised that it left the Clause in a ridiculous condition. On Report, the same people moved these two further Amendments as consequential, and they were accepted as such because they all hang on the same principle of substituting all principal activities for Second Schedule activities.

Mr. P. Roberts: I am not at all satisfied that the Amendment in page 5, line 5, is consequential on the other two. It deals with something altogether different, that is, those people who are manufacturers. I, personally, would not like to give my consent to such a procedure.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Then does the House agree that the first two Amendments be taken together.

Mr. Strauss: I would like to discuss the third Amendment as well—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—Then I shall have to put half an argument to the House. It was appreciated in the other place that the second and third Amendments resulted from moving the first Amendment. They were moved by the same people as consequential Amendments. If we are to discuss them separately, we cannot have a satisfactory and coherent discussion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be content to move it as consequential when we come to it.

Mr. Strauss: I should be happy to do that, or even to move the three separately,


but I can assure the House that if we do not discuss the three together, we cannot have any proper discussion. I suggest that another place, in making this series of Amendments, and altering the Clause in the way they have done, have turned a Clause which, when it left this House, was clear, precise and practical, into something which is confused, woolly and wholly impractical.
This Clause says that it shall be the duty of the Corporation to promote the efficient and economical supply of the products of Second Schedule activities, and to secure that the prices, qualities, and sizes of those products shall be such as will satisfy the reasonable demands of persons who use them. That is a logical proposition, and something within the power of the Corporation, because they have a virtual monopoly of the Second Schedule products. It is reasonable and proper to say to the Corporation that over these products it will be their duty to see that they are produced efficiently, and at prices and in quantities sufficient to satisfy the reasonable demands of consumers.
11.30 p.m.
When the Clause came before another place, it was suggested that, instead of making them responsible for Second Schedule products, where the Corporation have a virtual monopoly, that responsibility should be spread over the whole range of commodities, over which the Corporation have no monopoly whatever, and may be manufacturing only 40 to 50 per cent. of the commodities concerned. Therefore, the Corporation were given the duty to promote the efficient and economical supply of commodities whose production they control only to the extent of 40 per cent. It seems to me utterly ridiculous that the Corporation should have the duty of promoting the production of these commodities in such quantities and types as will satisfy the consumers when they have no power whatsoever over the production of, it may be, 60 per cent. of these commodities. The Corporation can carry out this duty only if they are given powers over that large section of private enterprise manufacturing these commodities in perhaps larger quantities than they are themselves. It is ridiculous to put that duty on the Corporation, yet that is what the Lords Amendment does.
After the Committee stage, the Lords appreciated that arguments such as I have used had considerable force and tried to remedy the situation by moving a further Amendment on Report which, to my mind, does not make the situation any better. This Amendment removes the duty which was imposed in the original Clause of securing that the products are of such types, qualities, quantities and sizes and are available at such prices as are suitable to the consumer, and made it the duty of the Corporation to promote their production, over much of which they have no control. That is the effect of the second Amendment.
The last Amendment was inserted because, I imagine, another place thought that it might be unreasonable to ask the Corporation to accept these responsibilities in respect of production over the whole range of commodities concerned, and it places the responsibility on the Corporation in respect only of those commodities likely to be bought by the consumers from the Corporation. The Corporation have to decide what proportion of the commodities concerned are to be bought by the consumers from the Corporation and what proportion from other producers outside the Corporation. That is really an impossible task. No one can possibly decide this, unless he is a thought reader. The consumer will buy from private producers or the Corporation according to whichever offers the best price and the best delivery. We cannot separate the prospective demand of the consumers and divide it between the Corporation and outside private producers. The Clause as it finally appears is nonsense, and wholly impracticable.
Take steel wire, of which 600,000 tons are produced every year. The Corporation will produce roughly about 46 per cent.; it will be one of the main activities of the Corporation. What is the duty of the Corporation to be under this Clause as amended by the Lords? Is it to be the duty of the Corporation to see that the whole 600,000 tons are produced properly, and at a reasonable price? Supposing consumption increases to 800,000 tons. Is it to be the duty of the Corporation to produce that additional quantity itself, or to ensure that private enterprise does so? Or supposing that consumption falls by half; what is the duty of the Corporation to be in that


case? This Clause, as it stands—and I am not trying to score debating points—is utterly meaningless and impracticable, and any Corporation affected by it would not know what their duties were.
Therefore, I suggest to the House that it would be better to go back to the simpler and more precisely defined duties for the Corporation as set out in the original Bill, which were that in those few commodities over which they have complete control—about 95 per cent.—the Corporation should have precise duties to see that production is economical and to see that their goods are produced in quantities, types, qualities and sizes which are suitable to the consumers of this country. Those are reasonable duties to put upon the Corporation. They are clear, and they are duties which the Corporation can carry out. To put upon them the remote responsibilities which would be imposed upon them under the Clause as amended in the Lords would be asking the Corporation to bear an impossible burden which cannot be defined by anyone, and which could not be checked either in the Consumers' Council or in this House, if the matter were raised here. For that reason, I ask the House to disagree with the Lords Amendment.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The right hon. Gentleman has told us that this matter, as it left the House of Commons, was crystal clear, and that, as it has returned to this House, it is full of confusion and obscurity. I am bound to say, if I may do so without impertinence, that I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has done anything to dispel that obscurity. He has introduced a rather impetuous and truculent attitude towards this Amendment. He has asked the House to assist him in the way in which it discusses these Amendments, an assistance which the right hon. Gentleman has denied to the House during the whole of the Debate, by the way in which he and the Chief Whip have had it conducted. It is recognised that this is a complex and difficult subject, and that it is one upon which more than one view can be held. I will not put it higher than that at the moment. I do not think it is so overwhelmingly on the side which he has put forward as he appears to think.
In the previous Clause we dealt with the powers which the new Corporation are to have. It is interesting to observe that when it is a matter of power, then the Government seek to draw them as wide as possible. It is, perhaps, symbolic of modern life that when people demand their rights they make them as wide as they can; but when it is a matter of the corresponding duties, they want to restrict them to as narrow a compass as possible. The Corporation must have every right to interfere with every kind of practice when it is a question of powers; but when it comes to this Clause, the Government wish to avoid what, it may be argued, are the corresponding responsibilities which would flow from, and be appropriate to, the rights given to the Corporation.
As the Clause was drawn originally, it put certain main duties upon the Corporation. They were to promote the most efficient and economical production; to promote production of enough goods to meet consumers' reasonable demands; to produce these goods at reasonable prices. I would merely point out that it seems to me that there is a logical case for the extension of duties upon a Corporation which claims such immense and wide powers, to see that at least in return it satisfies the users of these products, and that these products are made available in a reasonable way. As the Clause is drawn, the duties apply only—

Mr. Scollan: Which products?

Mr. Macmillan: I will come to that. As I was saying, as the Clause is drawn the duties, and not the rights, apply only to certain scheduled products. They will not apply to finished products, and it is on that issue that these Amendments turn.

Mr. Scollan: rose—

Mr. Macmillan: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman opposite will favour us with one of those speeches of the kind which has delighted us before. When he gets up to speak, the Patronage Secretary is always so disturbed that he promptly moves the Closure; but, since Mr. Speaker is not with us, the hon. Member is safe to make speeches because the Closure cannot be moved except in more favourable conditions than are now with us.
We were told that in the first Debate in another place it was declared that, if the first Amendment was carried, there would be results which would be anomalous. I believe that Lord Lucas spoke on this point, and these two further Amendments were framed to meet him. It may be argued that these should not have been put down at all, but it has been admitted that the three Amendments, taken together, do produce a workable and coherent scheme. I must say that I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman simply throws aside in this very extreme manner the whole argument presented for the idea lying behind this Amendment.
As will be shown by my hon. Friends who have a far more detailed knowledge of this subject than I can hope to claim, we have not had a fair description of this set of Amendments. The second two Amendments were produced on Report, and they, with the first, taken as a whole, strengthen the Bill. If they are considered fairly it has to be admitted that they give a logical counterpart to the immense range of rights which the Corporation are demanding for themselves in Clause 2, by making certain that in Clause 3 they shall have duties equal to the rights which are claimed.

Mr. P. Roberts: I should like to state why I do not wish these three Amendments to be taken together. The first two deal with the duties of the Corporation. The duties shall be exercised in such a way:
as may seem to the Corporation best calculated to satisfy the reasonable demands of the persons who use those products for manufacturing purposes and to further the public interest in all respects.
Somebody uses the products, and, under the Bill as it stands, that person can exercise a claim against the Corporation for breach of duty; but the third Amendment actually reduces the number of people who can exercise the right. As the Bill is drafted, anyone who uses a product can appeal against the Corporation, but the third Amendment says that not only must he use a product but he must also desire to purchase a product. I do not agree with that, because it narrows down those who can bring an action against the Corporation. If a firm have bought a big machine and are not satisfied with it, they will not be able to bring an action unless they want

to buy another. That seems to limit the scope of bringing actions against the Corporation. That is why I do not think the Amendments can be taken together, and I will, therefore, confine myself to the first two Amendments, which deal with the duties imposed on the Corporation.
11.45 p.m.
I wish to draw attention to what the Minister said today in regard to the consumer. He said that the consumer has full protection under the Bill and that there is ample provision to make his views effective. Let us see what this Clause does if it is not amended. The first two Amendments seek to bring in not only the Second Schedule activities but also the other activities outside the Second Schedule—there are a large number of these activities, from tin-plate tubes to cold-rolled strips and bright steel bars. Anyone who buys these has no claim against the Corporation for breach of duties. We are seeking to bring them within the scope of the Clause.
It seems most illogical that a purchaser of a Second Schedule article can complain against the Corporation for a breach of duty, but a purchaser of tin-plate has no claim, although both commodities are bought from the Corporation. I am sure that other Sheffield Members will stress that point. There are a large number of firms to be taken over which produce these non-Second Schedule articles. For instance, the Corporation will produce 68 per cent. of the tubes, 73 per cent. of the cold-rolled strip and 49 per cent. of the wire, which is well over half of the whole production of the country. But the consumer who buys these articles from the Corporation will have no right of action against the Corporation or anyone else.
Let us assume that a consumer has bought something with which he is dissatisfied, either as to quality or price. All he can do is complain to the Consumers' Council who will make a complaint to the Minister, and he will take the matter up with the Corporation. They will issue an instruction to the publicly-owned company. Let us assume that the company do nothing about it. What right has the consumer in these circumstances? For weeks and months he will suffer damage. Another complaint may be made, and the Minister will again refer


the matter to the Corporation. This time the Corporation may remove the directors from the company, and put in a new set of directors. All right—but still the Consumers' Council cannot get satisfaction and the consumer is suffering damage. So the procedure goes on and on. So long as the Corporation do their best to promote and secure availability, that is all that can happen as far as a right in regard to damage for the consumer is concerned. [An HON. MEMBER: "What right has he now?"] Now, he has the ordinary right of common law if something which he does not like takes place. We are now considering something which the publicly-owned company, the monopoly, does, which is an entirely different thing.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The hon. Member will appreciate that, under the Clause as amended by another place, this duty is placed on the Corporation to produce these goods
… in such quantities, types, qualities and sizes and at such prices as may seem to the Corporation best calculated to satisfy the reasonable demands.
The whole thing depends, anyhow, on the general view of the Corporation as to what will satisfy the reasonable demands. I think the argument about bringing actions against the Corporation in respect of tin-plating and not of steel is a bit far-fetched.

Mr. Roberts: The Amendment to line 43 refers to the
principal activities of the Corporation and of the publicly-owned companies.
In other words, a duty is now brought in with respect to publicly-owned companies. What I was saying was that under the Bill, as the Government wish it, there is no actual duty placed upon the publicly-owned companies. The Amendment of another place brings in the publicly-owned companies and places a duty upon them so that an action would lie under this Clause if there were a breach by the publicly-owned companies as well as by the Corporation. That is the point. I wish to reserve what I have to say about those who have to be satisfied, whether it happens to be somebody who buys the product or merely uses it, which is a different point, to a later stage in our discussion.

Mr. H. Fraser: I want to reinforce the argument put so ably by my right hon.

Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Ecclesall (Mr. P. Roberts). What we have seen here is an example of the Govermnent dialectically led with some ability, by the right hon. Gentleman, although he tried to confuse the House and, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, even such an exalted person as yourself, on these Amendments. Luckily, that problem has been successfully resolved.
What the Government are trying to do here is simply to eat their cake and have it. That is typical of the way the Socialists tend to think, and, as far as that metaphor was used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—he talked at great length during the Budget about having our cake and eating it—it is an example of the illogical confusion into which hon. Gentlemen opposite can fall.
The point is that the Minister said, in a speech on 27th April, 1949, that it was never suggested, when the Government brought in the Bill, that the industry existed solely for the making of those products specified in the Second Schedule. That is why I say that the Government are attempting to eat their cake and have it. The Government are indeed nationalising a great variety of industries outside the Second and Third Schedules, and yet they have no responsibility whatever over the control of prices and the supply of items. That is surely as ridiculous an attitude as any into which any Government, even that of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, could manoeuvre themselves.
As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the point of this Clause is to make the Government and the Corporation responsible, not merely to the Consumers' Council but through the Minister, to this House. We believe that one of the things that needs to be got over in this Bill is that Parliament should have some control over the Executive and thereby save such maladjusted and futile corporations from being set up. The point of these Amendments is to see that there is Parliamentary control, and to see whether the Minister can be made responsible if there is found to be not sufficiently economical promotion and production, at reasonable prices, to satisfy the average consumers' demand.
I want now to turn to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ecclesall. The Minister in his strange defence of his opposition to these Amendments, put forward the argument that what the Government and the Corporation needed to do was to look after the Second Schedule products. If hon. Gentlemen will look at the Second Schedule products, they will see that these are extremely limited. If I may say so, in parenthesis, we are getting confusion of thought because the Government do not know what they propose to nationalise. If hon. Gentlemen will look at the Second Schedule products, they will see they are limited indeed. They really apply only to iron ore, pig iron, carbon steel, ingots, re-rolling of sheet and certain types of plate. They do not apply to a large variety of products from the industry, because the Government decided at the last moment not to nationalise the industry but only to nationalise individual firms.
Great confusion has emerged and what we get from the Bill is what is known to the industry as price leadership. The difference between this and a monopoly is small indeed. If a small amount of material is being produced and the manufacturer raises the price, everyone else tends to follow suit. The Government, or the Corporation, by reason of the varied Clauses in this Bill, and especially the notorious "taking one year with another" Clause, enabling them to balance one year with another over a number of years, can fix and rig prices as they think fit. If one looks at this price leadership, which affects the point at issue, it means that if the Government have it they must be responsible, as any State monopoly must, to Parliament for these prices. It is not a question for the Consumers' Council. It is a matter of being responsible to Parliament so that Questions can be asked in the House.
If one takes the example of tin-plate, 88 per cent. of this will be produced by the Government publicly-owned companies. It is not necessarily a Second Schedule product. It can be because it can be hot-rolled: it can be cold-rolled, and that difference means that it is not a Second Schedule product. This, I may say, is typical of the abysmal ignorance of the Government about the industry they are trying to nationalise. They do

not know, and yet bring forward this sort of Bill. Tyres, wheels and axles, of which 94.3 per cent. will be produced by the Government could not in any circumstances be called Second Schedule products. Yet the Government will have almost a complete monopoly in regard to them.
12 m.
Certainly they will be able to maintain complete price leadership; and unless this House has control of the Minister and can ensure fair, efficient and economical production with the right prices being charged, then not only is the power of this House being greatly and horrifyingly diminished, but the whole industry of this country is being endangered by this octopus which can spread even further to that huge variety of products which exists under these articles of association and which at this time I have not mentioned. It is indeed a grave matter that the Minister should have seen fit to offer such a palpably absurd rebuttal of the arguments put forward in another place and put forward with great vehemence by my hon. Friends who have spoken.

Mr. Maclay: The thing that has puzzled me about the Minister's refusal of this Amendment and the related Amendments, is that he devoted his arguments to the quantitative problem arising out of the principal activities, which is, of course, only part of the whole. The question of quantity and producing in such quantities, is dealt with by the Amendments, but the real question is, does the Minister mean that he accepts responsibility for the Corporation to see that there is no undue preference given in relation to the products covered by the Amendments? Or does he mean that he is not concerned about the types, quantities, sizes and prices—because that is what he is really refusing in this Amendment? It is just as important to apply this to the principal activities as to the Second Schedule activities and I do not think the Minister has met that point at all. He does not seem concerned about this preference question and about types, quantity and size when he comes to the products of the principal activities.
In this whole discussion I have been completely puzzled as to how the Corporation could possibly fulfil their duties at all, particularly in relation to Second


Schedule activities. One thing that might be practicable is that the Corporation might know what is in "the public interest" and what are the "reasonable demands" of the persons using the products, where companies other than the Corporation are concerned, because there is at least a price mechanism working there. I defy the Minister to tell me that the Corporation can fulfil properly the obligations of paragraph (a).
The Minister gave the thing away entirely when he pointed out that paragraph (a) is qualified entirely by the words "as may seem to the Corporation best calculated." The duty of the Corporation is thus to do what the Corporation think best. It is really the most crazy Clause that has ever been in any Bill and it is the inevitable product of a nationalisation Bill. How can the Minister justify such a Clause? If he would accept the Amendments, we would at least have some justification for the Clause, because in the products of the principal activities there is some check with the other manufacturers as to whether the Corporation are doing their job. Without these Amendments, I submit that this whole Clause might be torn out of the Bill and thrown to wherever these things are thrown.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I wish to ask the Government what is, I think, a pretty simple question; and I rise now in the hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will have time to find out the answer, if he does not know it already, before he replies to this Debate.
In moving that we disagree with this Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman did his best to attack and ridicule it, but he did not mention at any time what would be the effect of omitting it. Am I not right in saying that if these Amendments are not agreed to, the Bill does not provide that any duty whatsoever rests upon the Corporation in respect of the finished products? Is not that the position? If it is, then whatever comment he may have made, and however justified it may have been—and I do not think it was at all justified—upon what was done in another place, it was obviously an attempt to fill a very grave gap in this Bill. The effect of disagreeing with this Amendment will be to leave that gap as it was.
I think I am right in saying that nowhere in this Bill is any duty laid upon the Corporation with regard to the finished products which are not Second Schedule activities; that, in fact, they can engage in any such undue preference and exercise any unfair discrimination as they wish with regard to those unfinished products not in the Second Schedule activities. My hon. Friends have indicated quite clearly the scope and nature of those activities, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary to say whether or not it is the case that there is no duty at all, as the Bill stands, placed on the Corporation in relation to the production of those finished articles. If there is some such duty, let him refer to it. If there is not such a duty, I suggest that we should welcome this attempt by another place to deal with an obvious defect in a completely unsatisfactory Measure.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I wish to reinforce this question—I think it is a very pertinent one—put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). I see that the Minister is in conversation; I hope he will try to give an answer to it, because it might shorten our proceedings. It is now just past midnight. I have heard most of the discussions on these Amendments, and I think every one could have been accepted by the Government without the slightest damage to the Bill—in fact they would have done the Bill a great deal of good.
For hours we discussed the powers of this Corporation and the Minister sought by every means he could to extend those powers. We now come to discuss the duties. If I might have the attention of the Minister—[Interruption]—does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene? If he does, I will willingly give way. If I may have the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, I wish to deal with the argument he advanced, as I understood it. He said that this Clause, as amended in another place, made nonsense and I understood his argument to be something like this: He said the Clause read:
It shall be the general duty of the Corporation so to exercise their powers as to promote the efficient and economical supply of products.
"Then," said the right hon. Gentleman, "we must only have words which limit those products." Now why? Why


should that be the only duty placed upon this Corporation? It seems to me a most incredible argument to advance to the House; that one should only be able to promote the efficient and economical supply of something of which one has a monopoly. This country would be in a funny state if that were the condition on which something was economically produced. That argument does not bear investigation for a moment. There is no real reason why this Corporation should not have the duty placed upon them of promoting the economic supply of products such as those mentioned by my hon. Friends, of which they produce 73 per cent., 83 per cent. or 93 per cent.
The right hon. Gentleman has got it into his head that the Clause as amended would place a duty upon the Corporation to promote an economic supply of things provided by private companies, but it does nothing of the kind, nor does it say anything of the kind. The products to which it refers, as the right hon. Gentleman will see if he reads it, are products of the principal activities of the publicly-owned companies. The people concerned are those people who wish to buy those products—the products of the Corporation and the publicly-owned companies and not of the private companies. If this Amendment from another place were accepted, all that this Clause would do would be to place a clear duty upon the Corporation to produce efficiently and economically those things which they have just taken over in Clause 2, which it seems to me is the most elementary thing to do in any nationalisation Bill. If the Minister cannot produce a better argument than that, the House would only be doing its duty if it refused to agree to the Minister's Motion.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) entirely misunderstood what I said. The Amendment places on the Corporation the duty of promoting not only the efficient and economic supply of the products of the principal activities of the Corporation and the publicly-owned companies, but
the availability of those products in such quantities, types, qualities and sizes and at such prices.
It is the availability in such quantities

which is obviously quite impossible when the production of these products by the Corporation is only 40 per cent. or 50 per cent.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The right hon. Gentleman speaks of the availability of products at such prices as the Corporation think are best calculated to meet the demands of the customers. What on earth is wrong with that? That is what every private business in the country is doing. The Austin motor factory do not produce cars to satisfy the users of Morris cars, but to suit their own customers. We only ask that the simple duty, which every private producer has undertaken, should be placed upon the shoulders of this great Corporation.

Mr. Gallacher: I have listened with great interest to the arguments that have been put forward, and very good arguments they were. What I understand from hon. Members opposite is that they desire that there should be no interference with this Corporation, but that it should be independent. After having listened to the discussion on this Amendment and to other arguments today, I think that I have never heard finer, clearer or better arguments for the job that we should have done at the start—the abolition of the House of Lords.

Mr. Butcher: I am somewhat surprised at the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). Why on this particular Clause he should talk about the abolition of the House of Lords I do not know. This House at the present time is under a great debt of gratitude to their Lordships for greatly improving this Bill, and if the Minister listens to the arguments instead of relying on the docile majority he commands in the Lobby, this Bill will be considerably improved. As the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) said, the duties of the Corporation are twofold—

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Stokes: He is not right honourable.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Not yet.

Mr. Butcher: The hon. Member for Monmouth; we must not anticipate the results of the next General Election.

Mr. Stokes: The hon. Member for Monmouth will not get back.

Mr. Butcher: The first duty is:
To promote the efficient and economical supply of the products of the activities specified in the first column of the Second Schedule…
They also have the duty implicit in the fact that they are entering into business to make available in reasonable quantities and prices such goods as old-established connections of the companies which are being taken over may require to purchase. The Lords Amendment requires the Corporation to discharge both duties, to give satisfaction not only in respect of the Second Schedule products but also to continue to meet the wishes of existing customers in the same satisfactory manner, and to offer them the same variety and choice, as was done by the companies the Minister is now expropriating. If that is the duty which we all recognise as inherent in the Corporation, what earthly reason can exist, except the blind prejudice of the Minister, for not writing it clearly into the Bill? I hope that we shall agree with the Lords in this Amendment.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: The Minister's defence seemed to be a long plea of non-pursuance, that is to say, "We recognise that there is a problem, but we are unable to meet it." What is the problem that the Minister is unable to meet? He has entirely forgotten that when we were considering the Monopolies Bill, it was considered that one-third control of any commodity was technically held to be able to carry with it control, not in the whole of the country, but in certain sections of the country.
The right hon. Gentleman said, "This cannot be done because of the commodities about which we are thinking. We only control something like 40 per cent. of the output of a great many of these articles." He cannot have it both ways. If the Government insist that a monopoly may exist for the purposes of the Monopolies Bill if one-third of the output of a commodity is controlled, they cannot at the same time say that they can do nothing about this case where they control 40 per cent.
That completely ignores two other important points. The first is that in the case of many of these articles, such as tubes, with an output of 68 per cent., and cold-rolled strip, with an output of

73 per cent., no provision is being made at all, for the provision of an efficient and economical supply of Second Schedule articles is required only where there is a monopoly. What will happen, for instance, to the user of cold-rolled steel? Will he be left in the cold? What can he do about his supplies. At one stage it was said that the remaining producers of cold-rolled steel could cover their requirements, but if all the users of cold-rolled steel have to go to an outside concern, we shall have an intolerable position and inflation.
Some provision must be made for this. It is not good enough for the Minister to say, "I have rung my bell for the Parliamentary draftsman. Now I am left wringing my hands. There is nothing I can do about it. We must accept this position, and the users of these commodities must make the best they can of it. They can always go to the Consumers' Council"—that omniscient, omnipresent and omnibus body which we are told can look after everything, including all the ills revealed in our consideration of the Bill at an earlier stage.
In any case, may I ask how these individuals are going to get attention from the Consumers' Council? I cannot find anything which allows them automatically to get a hearing of their complaints. Why should the Council have to remedy an ill after it takes place instead of the Bill providing that it shall never take place? This Bill, as has been said, gives the Government the widest of powers, and the narrowest of responsibilities. For the Government that is a very convenient situation, a very happy position, a very agreeable formula, but it is very bad for the country.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I wish to take part in this discussion if only to emphasise the fact that it is perfectly disgraceful that the Government should not condescend to give any reply to the arguments that have just been made. In the Committee stage of this Bill, this Clause was not discussed at all owing to the Guillotine. On Report the right hon Gentleman dealt with it in rather less than one column of HANSARD, with the result that there has been no full discussion of this all-important Clause until tonight. The House is entitled to some further argument about it, and some further explanation from the Government.
The questions I want to ask—and if the Government do not choose to answer them, they will simply show that they have not got the answers—are these. First, what duty is placed on the Corporation in respect of their ancillary activities? Is there any duty at all? Can the Corporation do exactly what they want, or have they not some duty to the public? There is complete silence from the Government.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: It would be wholly inappropriate to bring into this Clause the making of the many ancillary products of the Corporation because they cannot possibly control, as I have said over and over again, the complete production of goods where they make only 10, 15 or 40 per cent. Therefore, the particular duty in this Clause is to secure that all the products of the Second Schedule activities
are available in such quantities, and are of such types, qualities and sizes …
etc. It would be wholly inappropriate to mention all the other activities of the Corporation. If the hon. and learned Gentleman likes to turn to other parts of the Bill, the Consumers' Council Clause, for example, he will find reference to the powers of consumers who feel they have been aggrieved because of matters affecting other products. Their complaints can be discussed at the Consumers' Council, but it would be wholly inappropriate to include these other products here.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: It really would have been better if the Parliamentary Secretary or someone else had dealt with these points seriatim at the end of the Debate, because that intervention was somewhat lengthy. I should like to deal with the Minister's intervention point by point. With regard to the remedy of the purchasers of products of ancillary products via the Consumers' Council, that is an extremely cumbersome method. It will be exceedingly difficult, in fact, for them to pursue their approaches up that avenue to a successful or effective conclusion, and there are few sanctions under that method.
Secondly, if a man can be a wicked monopolist when he is producing as much as one-third of a particular product, why should it not be possible for some duty to be placed on the Corporation when in some cases they are producing 70 or 80

per cent. of a product. Why should not the procedure applicable to private enterprise be applicable also to public enterprise? It seems obvious that the Government are not willing that the two should be treated in the same way.
I come back to my original point. Why should not the Corporation be given some general duty in respect of the products of ancillary activities? What is there damaging to the activities of the Corporation in saying that they are to have a general duty to promote efficient and economical supply? Why should the Corporation be afraid of that? Why should the Government be afraid of imposing that duty in regard to the ancillary activities?
When I first read the second Amendment, I thought something was being given to the Government in the deletion of the word "secure", but it is obvious that nothing is being given away because it is governed by the words "as may seem to the Corporation best calculated." What is wrong in imposing on the Corporation the duty to promote the availability of these products in such quantities, qualities and sizes, etc.? If there is to be a general duty imposed on the Corporation—and the weakness of the whole Bill is shown by the ineffectiveness of this Clause—why should not that general duty be imposed also in respect of ancillary activities?
There is a further point which has not yet been mentioned. As I understand the Clause, paragraph (b), which is a part of the Clause to which the right hon. Gentleman did attach some importance, dealing with undue preference and unfair discrimination, will also be affected if these two Amendments are accepted; in other words, undue preference and unfair discrimination will also be applied to ancillary activities. Why are the Government afraid to impose on the Corporation the duty not to show undue preference in respect of ancillary products? Even though they are producing only a small proportion of the total production they can, by undue preference or unfair discrimination, give great advantage to persons for reasons or objects best known to themselves. It will be disgraceful if the Government choose to leave the matter with the very brief intervention we have had so far, and are afraid to put up the Parliamentary Secretary to reply.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I am glad to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It seems to me that the Minister has been less than just to another place. He began by saying that when the first Amendment was originally made, it made nonsense of the Clause; but that is a normal experience in Committee work, and is inherent in it. I remember an occasion on the Docking and Nicking of Horses Bill when we had to suspend the Sitting for a time to get matters straight. The whole purpose of a Report stage is to correct such inevitable features of a Committee stage.
12.30 a.m.
As the Clause now reads, it makes a completely logical and clear section of the Bill. The Minister wants to do one thing, their Lordships another, and both express themselves with complete logic. The Minister says that where the Corporation and publicly-owned companies have a complete monopoly, they can be required to produce a sufficient and economical supply of products. Their Lordships say that a similar duty shall apply to all products of the Corporation and publicly-owned companies in whatever proportion. What is the difference between 100 per cent. and 40 per cent. that makes—? [HON. MEMBER: "Sixty per cent.!"]—It used to be that the difference between 100 and 40 was 60, but unfortunately in this world of social mismanagement it may well cease to be the case to-morrow.
The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that the Corporation will be responsible for 46 per cent. of the production of steel wire. That is an interesting figure, for it is just the percentage of the total votes cast at the General Election obtained by the Labour Party. The Labour Party have not hesitated to use that 46 per cent. as giving them a mandate to do anything they please, and anybody who challenges that claim is said to be flouting the will of the people; yet in this case, where the Corporation will be producing 46 per cent. of a given product the Minister is unwilling to impose any duty on the Corporation to say that they shall produce it efficiently and economically.
There is a strong case for confining the activities of the Corporation to Second Schedule activities, but if they are allowed to enter the wider field and produce steel wire, tennis racquets and so on,

then at any rate let a similar duty be imposed on the Corporation. This is only one more example of the tendency, of which we have had several illustrations tonight, of the Government flouting the interests of the consumers. The proposal in the Lords Amendment is one more slight protection for the consumers of certain products, and the Government are unwilling to extend that protection. The hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) said that the Clause was one of the most crazy in the Bill. It is curious in these days how so many of us find our thoughts adequately expressed by Lord Ammon when he spoke on the telephone.

Mr. Lyttelton: We have not yet had an answer to a very simple question. I think it is the duty of the Government to give it to us. The defence that has been put up is that the consumer against whom undue preference is shown can have recourse to the Consumers' Council, but how can he have recourse to the Consumers' Council when no duty is laid on the Corporation in these matters? It is a very small point, to which we have had no satisfactory answer, and I think the right hon. Gentleman must address himself to that at once.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: It makes no difference whatever. The consumer can apply to the Consumers' Council if he feels unfairly treated and they can report the matter to the Minister, and the Minister can take action. It has nothing to do with the fact that in respect of those products in which the Corporation have a monopoly certain duties are put on the Corporation to produce them in the quantities required by the consumers.

Mr. P. Roberts: What happens if the Minister does not redress the grievance of the consumer?

Mr. David Renton: The only reason I intervene at this stage is that it appears to me that an important section of industry is going to be nationalised, and that when it has been nationalised responsibility for its management and, indeed, for the employment of the people in that section of industry, is going to be left vague. Also, it appears to me that that applies to the tin-plate industry of South Wales, besides applying to other important sections of the industry. It is astonishing that when the right hon.


Gentleman is challenged with this situation, he makes what is for him, generally a fairly cool person, a somewhat heated speech, and a somewhat exaggerated speech, in which he describes the constructive proposals of their Lordships as ridiculous and inappropriate.
What we find to be inappropriate is the fact that the Government have not yet told us precisely what responsibility there will be for continuing this important section of industry working along at least as good lines as it has in the past. The industry is organised at the moment, in very much the same way as the railway industry was organised before it was nationalised, so that the parts upon which the Government, with their peculiar prejudices, wish to get a firm grasp, are operated as one close unit with other activities upon which the Government are not so dogmatically keen.
When it came to nationalisation of the railways—the right hon. Gentleman will remember this well—and it was found that the railways were accustomed to operate hotels, it was not decided to divest the Railway Executive of responsibility to the users of these hotels for their management. On the contrary, the Minister of Transport, in his wisdom, realised that there should be some responsibility for keeping the hotels as a going concern, and he set up a Hotels Executive to deal specifically with the matter, in the same way as he dealt with other ancillary activities, such as docks and harbours.
What experience have the Government undergone which, within two years, can make them change their mind so fundamentally on this important matter? I suggest in all seriousness to hon. Members opposite, who have listened in considerable numbers and patiently, to this Debate, without unfortunately giving us the advantage of their views, that one fundamental principle of Socialism—I speak not as a Socialist, but as one who takes an objective and, I hope, intelligent interest in it—must be that if you decide to seize power, you must, at least, also be prepared to accept equivalent responsibility. It is because this Bill does not impose upon the nationalisers responsibility equivalent to the power which they are taking that we feel that a further explanation from the Government is called for.
This is the first time today that I have ventured to intervene in the Debate. I feel that we should be grateful to their Lordships for having, by means of these Amendments, raised for discussion on the floor of this House some of the more salient points of this Bill. It is quite obvious that the most important points have been chosen, and they are, incidentally, points which were discussed far too inadequately when this Bill was last before the House. In spite of the presence of the Patronage Secretary at this stage, I hope we may have the benefit of an explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary, who has listened to the whole of this discussion. I hope that he will deal precisely with what is to happen, for instance, to the tin-plate industry in South Wales which has been developed to a very great extent in recent years and has played a great part in rescuing a large number of people from the economic tyranny of unemployment.
What responsibility is to be owed toward that industry, to the steel wire industry, and to other important parts of industry which are to be nationalised but which are not, in the technical language of this Bill, Second Schedule activities? The people in these industries want to know. It is not fair, especially from a Government which claims—sometimes hypocritically, I think—to care for the best interests of the workers, that the future of the workers should be left dangling in mid-air. Let us know; the House, as well as the workers, are entitled to know before the Patronage Secretary intervenes in this Debate.

Major Legge-Bourke: I am in two minds as to what the Government intend by disagreeing with these Amendments—[Interruption]—I can well understand the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) using this occasion as another opportunity for abusing another place, but he is also probably only too glad to ignore the effects on Soviet Russia. We in this country are interested to know how the Minister proposes to promote economic production, to satisfy reasonable demands, and to avoid exercising undue discrimination as far as the publicly-owned companies are concerned.
We understand that the Corporation is covered by the Second Schedule, but we do not understand what is the Minister's attitude to the publicly-owned companies


—those which are to produce other materials, such as tubes and rolled strip. We want to know what the Minister is going to do in the way of supervision. The only indication so far given by the Minister was that made on 27th April, when he implied that all the complaints were to be handled through the Consumers' Council. He repeated that again tonight; but may I remind the House that Clause 6 (6) states:
The Minister may give directions to the Corporation on any matter arising out of any conclusion, report or representation made to him or to the Corporation by the Council.…
But what assurance have we that the Corporation will ever receive any of the complaints made by the consumers? What assurance is there that these complaints will be passed on, and what assurance have we that the Corporation will try to remedy these complaints?
I suggest that we are left with two alternatives; either the Minister does not intend to see the publicly-owned companies working efficiently and producing economically the right goods at a reasonable price, or there is no supervision to see that the consumers' demands are satisfied, there is no supervision to promote the assurance of reasonable price, and there is no means of avoiding undue discrimination. That is one alternative.
12.45 a.m.
The other alternative is that the Minister is going to turn the Consumers Council into a hot-air machine—a place for complaints to be voiced which he hopes will die a natural death. If I am any judge, I should say that one of the main features which attracted people to vote for nationalisation in the past was the belief that consumers' complaints would be more easily voiced than under private enterprise. That is what was believed, but what have the unfortunate consumers got? We know from other nationalised industries how much they got out of it, and we can see exactly the same thing happening with this industry; the consumers will be fobbed off at the Minister's convenience, and no obligation will be put on the Corporation in regard to the production and manufacture of a great many items of vital importance to industry today.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): I am wondering whether the House might not want to come to a decision fairly soon.

Mr. Nigel Birch: I want to put one point. It has been established—I think the Minister admits it—that there is no duty, as far as ancillary undertakings are concerned, not to show undue preference or unfair discrimination. The reason why no duty was laid on the ancillary undertakings in another place was that no monopoly was in the hands of the Government. I should like Members opposite to realise what they mean by "monopoly," as they are always using the term in a very loose sense. I remember debating this question once with a Member opposite, and he referred to Lewis's Store in Manchester as a monopoly. I do not know what percentage of trade they have, but it must be well under 10 per cent.; whereas in this case, in regard to cold-rolled strip and tubes, it is something like 70 per cent. of the total trade. Clearly, if undue preference is shown in this case the whole object of the Bill falls to the ground. Simply to say it is all right because, although the Corporation have no duty, it will be possible to complain to the Consumers Council, seems to be the height of fatuity. So far, complaints have led to nothing at all in other industries, and it seems, a fortiori, that where no duty is laid on a corporation, no results will ever be obtained with consumers' councils.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. P. Roberts: (seated and covered): On a point of Order. I should like to have it made quite clear that we are to divide on the first two Amendments, and that there will be an opportunity for me to discuss the third Amendment, in page 5, line 5, which I mentioned while your predecessor was in the Chair.

The Deputy-Speaker: Judging by Mr. Speaker's notes on this Order Paper, the Amendments to lines 43 and 44 and to line 5, in page 5, all go together—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I am only going by the instructions here. I will look into the matter.

The House divided: Ayes, 301; Noes, 163.

Division No. 224.]
AYES
[11.13 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)


Albu, A. H.
Delargy, H. J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Diamond, J.
Jay, D. P. T.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Dobbie, W.
Johnston, Douglas


Alpass, J. H.
Dodds, N. N.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Donovan, T.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Attewell, H. C.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)


Austin, H. Lewis
Dumpleton, C. W.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hilchin)


Awbery, S. S.
Dye, S.
Keenan, W.


Ayles, W. H.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Kenyon, C.


Bacon, Miss A.
Edelman, M.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Baird, J.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
King, E. M.


Balfour, A.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Kinley, J.


Barstow, P. G.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Kirby, B. V.


Barton, C.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lang, G.


Battley, J. R.
Ewart, R.
Lavers, S.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Fernyhough, E.
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Field, Capt. W. J.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Benson, G.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Leonard, W.


Berry, H.
Follick, M.
Levy, B. W.


Beswick, F.
Fool, M. M.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Bing, G. H. C.
Forman, J. C.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Binns, J.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Lindgren, G. S.


Blenkinsop, A.
Freeman, J. (Watford)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Blyton, W. R.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Logan, D. G.


Boardman, H.
Gallacher, W.
Longden, F.


Bottomley, A. G.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Lyne, A. W.


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Gibbins, J.
McAdam, W.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Gibson, C. W.
McAllister, G.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Gilzean, A.
McEntee, V. La. T.


Bramall, E. A.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mack, J. D.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Gooch, E. G.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Goodrich, H. E.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)


Brown, George (Belper)
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
McKinley, A. S.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
McLeavy, F.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Grenfell, D. R.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Burden, T. W.
Grey, C. F.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Burke, W. A.
Grierson, E.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Griffiths, O. (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Callaghan, James
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Carmichael, James
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mann, Mrs. J.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Chamberlain, R. A.
Gunter, R. J.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Champion, A. J.
Guy, W. H.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Cocks, F. S.
Hale, Leslie
Mayhew, C. P.


Coldrick, W.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Mellish, R. J.


Collick, P.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Messer, F.


Collindridge, F.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Collins, V. J.
Hardman, D. R.
Mikardo, Ian.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hardy, E. A.
Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Harrison, J.
Mitchison, G. R.


Cook, T. F.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Monslow, W.


Cooper, G.
Haworth, J.
Moody, A. S.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Morley, R.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Cove, W. G.
Herbison, Miss M.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Crawley, A.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mort, D. L.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hobson, C. R.
Moyle, A.


Cullen, Mrs.
Holman, P.
Nally, W.


Daggar, G.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Daines, P.
Horabin, T. L.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Houghton, Douglas
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hoy, J.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Hubbard, T.
O'Brien, T.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Oldfield, W. H.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'ton, W.)
Oliver, G. H.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hytnd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Orbach, M.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paget, R. T.


Deer, G.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)




Palmer, A. M. F.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Walker, G. H.


Pargiter, G. A.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Parker, J.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Parkin, B. T.
Simmons, C. J.
Warbey, W. N.


Pearson, A.
Skeffington, A. M.
Watkins, T. E.


Peart, T. F.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Perrins, W.
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Weitzman, D.


Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Price, M. Philips
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
West, D. G.


Pritt, D. N.
Snow, J. W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Proctor, W. T.
Sorensen, R. W.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Pursey, Comdr. H.
Sparks, J. A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Randall, H. E.
Steele, T.
Wigg, George


Rankin, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Rees-Williams, D. R.
Stokes, R. R.
Wilkes, L.


Reeves, J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Rhodes, H.
Stross, Dr. B.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Richards, R.
Stubbs, A. E.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Robens, A.
Swingler, S.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Sylvester, G. O.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Symonds, A. L.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Robinson, Kenneth (St Pancras, N.)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Rogers, G. H. R.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


Sargood, R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Scollan, T.
Thurtle, Ernest
Wise, Major F. J.


Scott-Elliot, W.
Timmons, J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Segal, Dr. S.
Titterington, M. F.
Woods, G. S.


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Tolley, L.
Wyatt, W.


Sharp, Granville
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Yates, V. F.


Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Usborne, Henry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Mr. Popplewell and


Shurmer, P.
Viant, S. P.
Mr. Richard Adams.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Fox, Sir G.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.


Astor, Hon. M.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
McCallum, Maj. D.


Baldwin, A. E.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Barlow, Sir J.
Gage, C.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)


Baxter, A. B.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
McFarlane, C. S.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Bennett, Sir P.
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Birch, Nigel
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Glyn, Sir R.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)


Boothby, R.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)


Bowen, R.
Granville, E. (Eye)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Gridley, Sir A.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Grimston, R. V.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Harden, J. R. E.
Marples, A. E.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)


Butcher, H. W.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Maude, J. C.



Haughton, S. G.
Medlicott, Brigadier F.


Carson, E.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Molson, A. H. E.


Challen, C.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.


Channon, H.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Hollis, M. C.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Hope, Lord J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Howard, Hon. A.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hurd, A.
Nicholson, G.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Nield, B. (Chester)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Odey, G. W.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


De la Bère, R.
Keeling, E. H.
Osborne, C.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kendall, W. D.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Donner, P. W.
Langford-Holt, J.
Pitman, I. J.


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Drayson, G. B.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Drewe, C.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Prescott, Stanley


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Linstead, H. N.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Eccles, D. M.
Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Raikes, H. V.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Low, A. R. W.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Erroll, F. J.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)







Renton, D.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Walker-Smith, D.


Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Studholme, H. G.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Roberts, H. (Handsworth)
Sutcliffe, H.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Teeling, William
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Ropner, Col. L.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
York, C.


Smithers, Sir W.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Spearman, A. C. M.
Touche, G. C.



Spence, H. R.
Turton, R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.
Major Conant and Col. Wheatley.


Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

Division No. 225.]
AYES
[12.50 a.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Foot, M. M.
McLeavy, F.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Forman, J. C.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Albu, A. H.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Freeman, J. (Watford)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Gallacher, W.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Attewell, H. C.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mann, Mrs. J.


Austin, H. Lewis
Gibbins, J.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Awbery, S. S.
Gibson, C. W.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Bacon, Miss A.
Gilzean, A.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Baird, J.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Balfour, A.
Gooch, E. G.
Mayhew, C. P.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Mellish, R. J.


Barstow, P. G.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Messer, F.


Barton, C.
Grenfell, D. R.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Grey, C. F.
Mikardo, Ian.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Grierson, E.
Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R.


Berry, H.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.


Beswick, F.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Monslow, W.


Bing, G. H. C.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Morley, R.


Binns, J.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Gunter, R. J.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Blyton, W. R.
Guy, W. H.
Mort, D. L.


Boardman, H.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Moyle, A.



Hale, Leslie
Nally, W.


Bottomley, A. G.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Hardman, D. R.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hardy, E. A.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Bramall, E. A.
Harrison, J.
O'Brien, T.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Oldfield, W. H.


Brawn, George (Belper)
Haworth, J.
Oliver, G. H.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Orbach, M.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Burden, T. W.
Herbison, Miss M.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Burke, W. A.
Hewitson, Capt M.
Pargiter, G. A.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Hobson, C. R.
Parker, J.


Callaghan, James
Holman, P.
Parkin, B. T.


Carmichael, James
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Pearson, A.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Horabin, T. L.
Peart, T. F.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Houghton, Douglas
Perrins, W.


Champion, A. J.
Hoy, J.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hubbard, T.
Popplewell, E.


Cocks, F. S.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Coldrick, W.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'ton, W.)
Price, M. Philips


Collick, P.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Pritt, D. N.


Collindridge, F.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Proctor, W. T.


Collins, V. J.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Randall, H. E.


Cook, T. F.
Jay, D. P. T.
Ranger, J.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Rankin, J.


Cove, W. G.
Johnston, Douglas
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Crawley, A.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Reeves, J.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Rhodes, H.


Cullen, Mrs.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Daines, P.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Robens, A.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Keenan, W.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Kenyon, C.
Robinson, Kenneth (St Pancras, N.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
King, E. M.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Sargood, R.


Deer, G.
Kinley, J.
Scollan, T.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Kirby, B. V.
Segal, Dr. S.


Delargy, H. J.
Lang, G.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Diamond, J.
Lavers, S.
Sharp, Granville


Dobbie, W.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Dodds, N. N.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Leonard, W.
Shurmer, P.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Levy, B. W.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Dye, S.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lindgren, G. S.
Simmons, C. J.


Edelman, M.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Skeffington, A. M.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Logan, D. G.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Longden, F.
Skinnard, F. W.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Lyne, A. W.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McAdam, W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Ewart, R.
McAllister, G.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Farthing, W. J.
McEntee, V. La. T.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Fernyhough, E.
Mack, J. D.
Snow, J. W.


Field, Capt. W. J.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Sorensen, R. W.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McKinlay, A. S.
Sparks, J. A.







Steele, T.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Usborne, Henry
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Stokes, R. R.
Vernon, Maj W. F.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Walker, G. H.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Stross, Dr. B.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Willis, E.


Stubbs, A. E.
Warbey, W. N.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Swingler, S.
Watkins, T. E.
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


Sylvester, G. O.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Symonds, A. L.
Weitzman, D.
Wise, Major F. J.


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Woods, G. S.


Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
West, D. G.
Wyatt, W.


Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)
Yates, V. F.


Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Thurtle, Ernest
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.



Timmons, J.
Wigg, George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tolley, L.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.
Mr. Hannan and Mr. Wilkins.


Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)





NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Odey, G. W.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Astor Hon. M.
Haughton, S. G.
Osborne, C.


Baldwin, A. E.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Barlow, Sir J.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pickthorn, K.


Bennett, Sir P.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Pitman, I. J.


Birch, Nigel
Hollis, M. C.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hope, Lord J.
Prescott, Stanley


Boothby, R.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Bower, N.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Raikes, H. V.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hurd, A.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Renton, D.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Keeling, E. H.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Butcher, H. W.
Kendall, W. D.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Carson, E.
Langford-Holt, J.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Challen, C.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Channon, H.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ropner, Col. L.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Linstead, H. N.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Smithers, Sir W.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Low, A. R. W.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Spence, H. R.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Sutcliffe, H.


De la Bère, R.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Teeling, William


Donner, P. W.
McFarlane, C. S.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Drayson, G. B.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Drewe, C.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Eccles, D. M.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Touche, G. C.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Turton, R. H.


Erroll, F. J.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Walker-Smith, D.


Fox, Sir G.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Marples, A. E.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Gage, C.
Maude, J. C.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Galbraith, Cmdr T. D. (Pollok)
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Gammans, L. D.
Molson, A. H. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
York, C.


Granville, E. (Eye)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.



Gridley, Sir A.
Nicholson, G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grimston, R. V.
Nield, B. (Chester)
Mr. Studholme and


Harden, J. R. E.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Lieut-Colonel Bromley-Davenport.


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Nutting, Anthony

Lords Amendment; In page 4, line 44, leave out from "and" to "as" in line 2 on page 5, and insert:

the availability of those products in such quantities, types, qualities and sizes and at such prices.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. G. R. Strauss.]

The House divided: Ayes, 296; Noes, 160.

Division No. 226.]
AYES
[1.1 a.m


Acland, Sir Richard
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Logan, D. G.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Ewart, R.
Longden, F.


Albu, A. H.
Farthing, W. J.
Lyne, A. W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Fernyhough, E.
McAdam, W.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Field, Capt. W. J.
McAllister, G.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McEntee, V. La. T.


Attewell, H. C.
Foot, M. M.
Mack, J. D.


Austin, H. Lewis
Forman, J. C.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Awbery, S. S.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McKinlay, A. S.


Bacon, Miss A.
Freeman, J. (Watford)
McLeavy, F.


Baird, J.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Balfour, A.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Gibbins, J.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Barstow, P. G.
Gibson, C. W.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Barton, C.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Gooch, E. G.
Mann, Mrs. J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Berry, H.
Grenfell, D. R.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Beswick, F.
Grey, C. F.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Bing, G. H. C.
Grierson, E.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Binns, J.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mayhew, C. P.


Blenkinsop, A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Mellish, R. J.


Blyton, W. R.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Messer, F.


Boardman, H.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Bottomley, A. G.
Gunter, R. J.
Mikardo, Ian.


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Guy, W. H.
Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mitchison, G. R.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hale, Leslie
Monslow, W.


Bramall, E. A.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Morley, R.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Brown, George (Belper)
Hardman, D. R.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hardy, E. A.
Mort, D. L.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Harrison, J.
Moyle, A.


Burden, T. W.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Nally, W.


Burke, W. A.
Haworth, J.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Callaghan, James
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Carmichael, James
Herbison, Miss M.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
O'Brien, T.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hobson, C. R.
Oldfield, W. H.


Champion, A. J.
Holman, P.
Oliver, G. H.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Orbach, M.


Cocks, F. S.
Horabin, T. L.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Coldrick, W.
Houghton, Douglas
Palmer, A. M. F.


Collick, P.
Hoy, J.
Pargiter, G. A.


Collindridge, F.
Hubbard, T.
Parker, J.


Collins, V. J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Parkin, B. T.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'ton, W.)
Pearson, A.


Cook, T. F.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Peart, T. F.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Perrins, W.


Cove, W. G.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Crawley, A.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Popplewell, E.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Cullen, Mrs.
Johnston, Douglas
Price, M. Philips


Daines, P.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Pritt, D. N.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Proctor, W. T.


Davies, Edward (Bruslem)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Randall, H. E.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, P. Asterley (Mitchin)
Ranger, J.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Keenan, W.
Rankin, J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kenyon, C.
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Deer, G.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Reeves, J.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
King, E. M.
Rhodes, H.


Delargy, H. J.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Diamond, J.
Kinley, J.
Robens, A.


Dobbie, W.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Dodds, N. N.
Lang, G.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lavers, S.
Robinson, Kenneth (St Pancras, N.)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Dye, S.
Leonard, W.
Sargood, R.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Levy, B. W.
Scollan, T.


Edelman, M.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Segal, Dr. S.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lindgren, G. S.
Sharp, Granville


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)




Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St Helens)
Symonds, A. L.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E)


Shurmer, P.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Wigg, George


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wilcock, Group-Capt C. A. B.


Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Simmons, C. J.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Skeffington, A. M.
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Timmons, J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Skinnard, F. W.
Tolley, L.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Smith, C. (Colchester)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Willis, E.


Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Usborne, Henry
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


Snow, J. W.
Walker, G. H.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Sorensen, R. W.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Wise, Major F. J.


Sparks, J. A.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Steele, T.
Warbey, W. N.
Woods, G. S.


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Watkins, T. E.
Wyatt, W.


Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Yates, V. F.


Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)
Weitzman, D.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Stross, Dr. B.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)



Stubbs, A. E.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Swingler, S.
West, D. G.
Mr. Hannan and Mr Wilkins.


Sylvester, G. O.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)





NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Nutting, Anthony


Astor, Hon. M.
Haughton, S. G.
Odey, G. W.


Baldwin, A. E.
Head, Brig A. H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Barlow, Sir J.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Osborne, C.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Bennett, Sir P.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Peto, Brig C. H. M.


Birch, Nigel
Hollis, M. C.
Pitman, I. J.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hope, Lord J.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Boothby, R.
Howard, Hon. A.
Prescott, Stanley


Bower, N.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Raikes, H. V.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Hurd, A.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Rayner, Brig R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Renton, D.



Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Keeling, E. H.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Butcher, H. W.
Kendall, W. D.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Carson, E.
Langford-Holt, J.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Challen, C.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Channon, H.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ropner, Col. L.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Linstead, H. N.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smithers, Sir W.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Low, A. R. W.
Spence, H. R.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Sutcliffe, H.


De la Bère, R.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Taylor, Vice-Adm E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Donner, P. W.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Teeling, William


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Drayson, G. B.
McFarlane, C. S.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Drewe, C.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Eccles, D. M.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Touche, G. C.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Turton, R. H.


Erroll, F. J.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Walker-Smith, D.


Fox, Sir G.
Mainningham-Buller, R. E.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Marples, A. E.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Gage, C.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Maude, J. C.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Gammans, L. D.
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Molson, A. H. E.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
York, C.


Granville, E. (Eye)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.



Grimston, R. V.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harden, J. R. E.
Nicholson, G.
Mr. Studholme and Mr. Digby.


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Nield, B. (Chester)



Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Howard: On a point of Order. Immediately after the House had proceeded to a Division and when it was called, I was in the Gallery. I came down with all the speed that the weather could permit, but when I got to the foot of the stairs the doors were locked and no one was there to allow me to come into the precincts of the Chamber. All of us have a certain duty to our constituents. I was here and, as I said, I came down with all the speed that could be expected of a man of my advanced years. I was denied the possibility of recording my vote, and I am wondering whether you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, could give me some guidance on the matter.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have not had much time to go into the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman. I think, strictly speaking, the hon. Member should be in the Chamber and not anywhere outside it, but, on the other hand, I do not know the answer. I do not think that the vote can be corrected. Perhaps the hon. Member will raise it with Mr. Speaker later today, and he will have time to look into the matter.

Mr. Hogg: Is it not the case, as a matter of fact, that hon. Members have by long custom and immemorial usage the right to be in the galleries and to listen to the Debates from there?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That was in the old House; not in this one.
Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 5, after "purposes" to insert:
and desire to purchase those products from the Corporation or from a publicly-owned company.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. P. Roberts: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: A point of Order was raised during the first Division. I understand that the three Amendments were taken together and I understand that the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise a point, but we cannot have the Debate all over again.

Mr. Roberts: This puts me in a difficult position, because I wished to record my vote against the first two Amendments, but I could not agree with the

Lords in the third Amendment. That is why I raised this matter, because it would have been impossible for me to have acted other than I did on two of the Amendments, but here I wish to record my vote against the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member now has his chance to vote for the Government.

Mr. Roberts: Am I not to be allowed to put before the House the reasons why I cannot vote for the Amendment? I might persuade some of my hon. Friends to agree with me.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No. All the Amendments were discussed together and, as the hon. Member says, he agreed with the Lords on the first two. He disagrees with them on the third, and he should have put his point of view then.

Mr. Roberts: I raised the point of Order during the Division because I understood it was accepted that only the first two Amendments would be taken.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have looked into the question of the third Amendment and I have followed what was agreed. I am now going to put the Question.

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 13, leave out "or from the public interest."

1.15 a.m.

Mr. J. Jones: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I trust that in my remarks I shall not find myself in disagreement with the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) or being corrected by the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss). The Government's intention in resisting the Amendment is that the words should be retained and that the Corporation and the publicly-owned companies should have the right to give preferential treatment in the public interest.
It may be necessary to encourage exports to the hard currency areas as against exports in directions which might be against the best interests of the country. It might be necessary for the Corporation to have a margin of discretion for meeting the demands of the home


market. The Government hope that it will never be necessary, but it may be, to give preferential treatment and priority in delivery to the construction of certain armaments, such as battleships, against pleasure steamers and such things. The Corporation might desire to give preferential treatment to the food canning industry. If we had a glut of a commodity, it might be desirable to give preferential treatment in tin-plate for canning. It might be necessary to put some consumers back on the priority list. Preferential treatment might be necessary in the case of generating plant and other things which were in short supply. The Government believe it to be necessary to keep the words "or from the public interest" in the Bill so that preferential treatment could be given where the Corporation and the Minister consider it necessary.
I feel certain that, with the knowledge which the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite has, he will agree about the difficulties there are when things which are in great demand are in short supply and when the necessary priorities must be given. It is necessary in such circumstances to cover the Corporation when legal proceedings might be taken against them. For these reasons, and many others, the phrase "the public interest," a loosely-defined term which covers a tremendous field of activity, has been inserted in the Bill. I think the Opposition will agree with the Government, in times such as these, that the public interest should be put first and foremost.

Mr. Osbert Peake: It is not possible to discuss this Amendment adequately without some reference to the question which is closely bound up with it—whether or not the right of recourse to the courts is going to be given in the enforcement of this undue preference Clause. I draw the attention of the House to the history of this Clause. There was no Clause prohibiting undue preference in the Bill as first presented. It was demanded during the Committee stage from these benches, and it was inserted on the Report stage by the Minister after he had tabled and withdrawn his first shot at a Clause of this character. The first Clause which the right hon. Gentleman put down was in terms to prohibit

undue preference, but there was a proviso to say that the provisions against undue preference should not be enforceable in any court of law.
That was the original undue preference Clause. It was withdrawn and the Clause in its present form, which is now before the House, was tabled. It places a duty on the Corporation to avoid
showing, undue preference to, and exercising unfair discrimination against, any such persons or any class thereof in the supply and price of those products, but without prejudice to such variations in the terms and conditions on which those products were supplied as may arise from ordinary commercial considerations or from the public interest.
There are two qualifications, therefore, which limit the liability, such as it is, of the Corporation where undue preference is concerned. When I raised this question on Report, I put it to the Minister thus:
I ask the right hon. Gentleman if somebody suffers from unfair discrimination, or if somebody is granted undue preference by one of these 106 companies in the Schedule, does he believe or think that under his new Clause as it is now drawn any effective legal action could be taken in the courts against the Corporation?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th April, 1949, Vol. 464; c. 212.]
I then expressed doubts about the matter, and said that I believed the new Clause had been drawn in its present form, amongst other things, to give the pretence of protection against undue preference and to avoid any possibility of recourse to the courts by any injured party against the Corporation. In reply to those questions of mine, the Minister stated:
The hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong. The Corporation are definitely responsible under the new Clause. If anyone wanted to proceed he would be able to proceed against the Corporation, who would be responsible for any undue preference which they might give and which was considered to be contrary to the public interest.
A similar assurance was given in the following column by the Solicitor-General, who said:
The remedy would lie against the Corporation, which could be proceeded against upon this basis…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th April, 1949; Vol. 464; c. 217–8.]
He went on to describe his reasons for saying that the Clause as drafted gave a right of recourse to the courts. The relevance of this question, whether or not there should be a right of recourse to the courts, lies in the words which the


Parliamentary Secretary now seeks to restore to the Bill, that is, the qualification on the ground of public interest—that is to say, excepting the Corporation from any sort of liability where considerations of public interest are involved.
I concede at once that considerations of public interest are very difficult questions for courts of law to give decisions on, but I shall submit to the House, and I think with some force, that they will be equally difficult for the Corporation to give a judgment on. I remember during the war, when Regulation 18 B was under constant discussion in this House and in the law courts, that it was frequently stated that considerations of public interest should be considerations on which Ministers and no one else should give judgment.
We are faced with the position now that the opinion given by the Minister, and reinforced by the Solicitor-General, that the Clause gave a right of recourse to the courts when anyone suffered damage through undue preference being exercised against them, has been jettisoned by the Government, and thrown over completely by the Lord Chancellor, who said the matter was by no means free from doubt, and accepted fully as a statement of the law the judgment of Lord Cairns, in the leading case of Atkinson against Newcastle Water Works:
The mere fact that a breach of public statutory duty has caused damage does not give a right of action to the person suffering the damage against the person guilty of the breach. Whether a breach does or does not give such a right of action must depend on the object and language of the particular statute.
There is a famous judgment by the late Lord du Parcq, in which he expressed very strong views indicating that Parliament should always indicate clearly one way or the other, whether a right of recourse to the courts was given or withheld in the case of a breach of a statutory decision. We are faced with the position now that what was stated by the Minister during the Debate on Report on 27th April, and supported by the Solicitor-General, has been repudiated by the Lord Chancellor in another place; and the Government are now moving, in lieu of a Lords Amendment, an Amendment in page 5, line 13:
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed as imposing on the Corporation either directly or indirectly, any form of duty or lia-

bility enforceable by proceedings before any court.
1.30 a.m.
That seems to be where we stand on the question of recourse to the courts. Despite the assurance given on the Report stage no injured party now will have any right to recover anything in consequence of undue preference or unfair discrimination exercised by the Corporation or any of its 100 subsidiary companies. What are the arguments advanced, firstly, in favour of there being no recourse to the court, and secondly, in favour of retaining the qualification that considerations of public interest shall prevent an injured consumer from even making a successful complaint to the Consumers' Council? They are, first, that this is not a suitable matter for the courts to pronounce judgment upon, and, secondly, that the Corporation must be able to exercise undue preference and unfair discrimination. The exception is stated in terms:
but without prejudice to such variations in the terms and conditions on which those products are supplied as may arise from ordinary commercial considerations or from the public interest.
The Parliamentary Secretary, in moving the Motion now before the House, said that in the export trade the Corporation must be free to exercise discrimination and preference, but the export trade is very little concerned with this Clause. It is limited to what are known as products of Second Schedule activities, which consist of four things—the getting of iron ore, which we do not export; the making of iron ore into pig iron, which we do not export; the making of pig iron into steel ingots, which we do not export; and the final process is known technically as hot rolling. It may be that certain hot-rolled products, for instance, steel rails, may in the past have come to some extent into the export trade, but the export trade is very little concerned with products of Second Schedule activities. In any event, undue preference does not mean that we have to charge the same price in the export market as we do in the home market. Undue preference, as all lawyers know, applies only to consumers who are in like circumstances and in the same category.
It has been suggested that it is necessary to have this qualification to enable undue preference to be exercised as regards the export market because, for


reasons of public policy, it might be undesirable to export steel to some potential enemy of this country. How is the Corporation to be a judge in a matter of that kind? Surely a case of that character must call for a direction from the Minister to the Corporation. This Corporation cannot be the judge of questions of defence and foreign policy. It is ridiculous to suppose that the words "public interest" in this proviso are intended to cover a case of that character. It is clearly a case for Ministerial direction, if undue preference of unfair discrimination is required for the export trade. The Parliamentary Secretary said that it might be more important to direct our exports of Second Schedule products to hard currency areas than to soft currency areas. Of course it may be; but that is clearly a case in which the Minister can give a direction.
Let the House bear in mind that what we asked for was a Clause against undue preference in the home market. We were not concerned with the export market. The fact that this Clause applies to the export market is entirely the doing of the Government. It is the Government's choice of words. What we have always asked for is a Clause against undue preference in the home market. To advance in defence of the qualifications of the Clause, that it would not be applicable to the home market is really a work of superogation. The right hon. Gentleman could have limited his undue preference Clause—which he told us, in the first place, was to give the right of action in the courts, though it now turns out that it does not do so—to the home market.
Then it is suggested that it might be desirable, even in the home market, to give preference as regards supply. I hope it is not suggested that there should be special preference as regards price in the home market to consumers who are in like circumstances. It will, indeed, be disastrous, if the Corporation are going to pick and choose, and select a nationalised industry, such as the coal mines or the railways, to whom steel shall be supplied at half the price at which it is supplied to anyone else.

Mr. J. Jones: I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that price was never mentioned.

Mr. Peake: It is mentioned in the Clause, I think. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Clause he will see that it says
to avoid showing undue preference to … any such persons … in the supply and price of those products.
This proviso about the public interest enables the Corporaton to vary their prices, and adapt their supplies to what they consider to be the requirements of the public interest. I say, first of all, that considerations of public interest should be settled by the Minister, and by the Minister alone, because he is the only person who can have sufficient knowledge at any moment of what is in the public interest and what is not. Secondly, I say that it should not be open to the Corporation to exercise undue preference or unfair discrimination even in the home market, not even where they consider some particular course of action is socially desirable.
If it be more desirable, for instance, that steel should go into the construction of factories, as is the case at present, than into the construction of cinemas, that is a matter on which the Minister can give directions to the Corporation, and not a matter on which the Corporation should be left to form their own opinion. If we are to have each nationalised industry's corporation forming its own opinion upon what is in the public interest, we shall have as many opinions as there are, in fact, boards and corporations. For these reasons, I hope that the House will insist upon the Amendment which their Lordships have put into the Bill.

Mr. C. Williams: I should like to thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the few remarks which he made with a view to enabling us to deal with this matter. We all know that he has had considerable experience in dealing with these matters in the House of Commons and outside. Without doubt, no one is better qualified to deal with this Clause, with its reference to the public interest, than some of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who must realise how badly these words, "in the public interest," have been used by this Government on so many occasions. There are no words in the British language which have been subjected to as much abuse and misuse as these words have in the


last three years. Whenever any Government Department wishes to do anything, or hide anything, or when it has any realisation at all as to why it has done anything at all, it always says "That was in the public interest." It is something just used as a covering, and we shall be in a hopeless position if all these great corporations can say, "We must have an advantage in the public interest." There is the advantage for the British Railways; there is the advantage for the Scottish farmer as against the Welsh farmer; and all this is because these advantages are said to be "in the public interest." If these loose words, which used to have a very close meaning in the conduct of this country, are attached to a Corporation of this kind, they will be interpreted promiscuously on all sorts of occasions to hide all sorts of misdeeds.
Let me discuss for a minute how these words, in this context, are used. If we are giving to the Corporation this particular power to sell things under a commercial heading, we are definitely putting it down to be a body which should act only on commercial lines. If we are to have nationalised industries they should work on those lines, and on no other lines at all; but once one adds these words in such a matter as that with which we are here concerned, one causes it to be thought that this Corporation is a semi-political body, biased one way or the other to the Government of the day.
I see some heads nodding; it seems that I am getting some considerable support from hon. Members opposite in the belief that it is conceivable that my idea of the public interest might be the right one. I may differ from the opinion of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), because I think that it would be in the public interest for a business to be well managed; but I do not guarantee that hon. Members opposite—who are taking no part in this Debate—will take the same line of thought.
That is one of the reasons why, if one gets inserted the rule that these great corporations are to work for the public interest, one is opening a wide field for the giving of preferences to all sorts and kinds of people for the use of powers in a very inefficient way which would be very prejudicial to the higher standards of life in this country. I thought

that there might be something in getting these words into the Bill; but then I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary, and I was again converted to thinking that the Government's case was completely unsound.

Mr. Gallacher: That is a very feeble one.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member apparently says that the Parliamentary Secretary is very feeble; I did not quite catch what he said, but that is what I understood. I am not saying he is feeble, but that he does not know his case; that he converted myself, and probably a large number of people, into thinking that these words were such that the Government could put forward its own policy, but not develop British trade and industry. It is perfectly easy, under the cover of these words, to do all sorts of things, and for that reason I hope the House will stand by the Amendment of another place.
1.45 a.m.
I am trying to look at the matter from the point of view of those on the Corporation. Perhaps at one moment the chairman may think it is in the public interest to do a certain thing and the Government may agree with him. On the other hand, he might think that the Government are completely mad and reverse the decision, as he thinks in the public interest. That can happen, and it has happened very lately. It is totally unfair for the Government to come forward and say that they really must have all these powers to use the Corporation in the widest interests of trade and commerce, when their intention is to squeeze trade and commerce into ways that favour the Government. There has been far too much favouring under the term "public interest." For that reason, I would not trust this Government to use these powers—and I have the growing support of the country in this—for what they regard as being in the public interest. I am sure there is no Member opposite who will get up and say that this Government is ever likely to look after the public interest in any way whatsoever.

Mr. H. Fraser: Both my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) and my hon. Friend the


Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) have clearly shown the type of confusion the Government are theoretically apt to get into with this type of Clause. It is clear that there is a new type of development in Socialism which might be called "Ammonism"—the revolution of public boards. This is precisely the difficulty which is going to arise in this case unless this Amendment is accepted. As my right hon. Friend has pointed out, it is purely in the interests of the country and the Government in power, presuming that they are normal, reasonable and have some sense, that they should be the judge of public interest and not a corporation appointed by the Government. What this Clause seeks to do is to make the Corporation the judge of what is the public interest.
I am sure that when Members opposite put this particularly stupid Bill before the country they did not wish to give the appearance of pursuing sordid partisan motives and the aggregation of even more power into their incompetent hands. At least they should now go to the country and give reasons why the trick which is being perpetrated is not as extreme as some of us believe. What this Clause does is to put into the hands of the Government, through the Corporation, two completely unnecessary powers.
I am sure that hon. Members opposite have paid great attention to the Debate which took place in another place. They have obviously read closely all that happened and have also read many of the articles written by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), who has had to swallow a great many of the things he said two years ago when he put forward armaments as being one of the chief reasons for this Bill. However, that is a digression which I am afraid may be out of Order. To return to this fact that the Government are now taking into their hands two completely unnecessary powers, one in the matter of exports and the other in the matter of the internal market, how absurd it is that the Corporation should be the judge of whether steel should be sent to Spain or wherever the latest crusade being fought by hon. Gentlemen opposite should fall. Surely that is precisely a Government matter. It is not a matter for the Corporation to decide where the public interest lies abroad, but for the Government of the

day to decide, if it be a responsible Government, which, unfortunately, this Government is not. If the Government think they can "pass the buck" this way, there will be further confusion.
As regards the home market, who is to decide where preference shall lie and who is to decide what is the public interest? Surely, again, it is not the Corporation but the Government of the day which are concerned. It is the Government which should be responsible to this House. As we know, this Corporation is not going to be responsible to this House except indirectly through the Minister, who can refuse to answer any Questions, as, indeed, all the Ministers concerned with public bodies constantly refuse to do. This, again, is an attack on the control by Parliament of this great machine which is being set up by this Bill.
It surely is an extremely dangerous principle and precedent that this question of public interest should be handed over to a Corporation, and to a Corporation which itself is engaged in competitive trade with other like industries or like firms. That obviously is a danger. Further—and this is the point which might even weigh with the Minister—even these powers as granted to the Corporation, if this Clause is unamended, are not wide enough if the Minister really sets out to gain what he secretly may wish to gain. These powers are limited to the Second Schedule activities and although the Government say they propose to nationalise only relevant portions of the iron and steel industry, they are in point of fact nationalising huge areas and sections of engineering and so forth, which are not technically part of the iron and steel industry. This part of this Clause does not cover anything beyond the First and Second Schedules, and in the matter of tin-plate there can be no discrimination because it is not a Second Schedule activity. Therefore, the Corporation cannot decide in the public interest whether to export tin-plate or give it, at a certain price, to the home market.
It stands to reason that what we see before us in the refusal of the Government to accept this Amendment is a complete and utter confusion of mind. First the Clause does not give complete power over the whole range of industry involved. Secondly, it causes a great and growing fear to the public who have to


accept this Bill. The third point, which surely arises from this Clause as it stands unamended, is that here again we see confusion of thought, the development of this "Ammonism" trend, the trend to give power to the board and the confusion that grows up between decisions of the board and the Government. Finally, as throughout this Bill, we see an attack on the powers of this House to control this enormous industry, which may do such great damage under national control to the industry and to the economy of this country.

Lord John Hope: I hope that other speakers on this side of the House will say something more about public interest on the lines which have already been mentioned by my hon. Friends. There is probably nothing more important in this Bill than the way in which the phrase "public interest" is used, or misused. What a contrast when we think back to the days of the noble inception of the phrase res publica and to its final degradation at the hands of hon. Gentlemen opposite who now compose His Majesty's Government. What is clear is that hon. Gentlemen mean by public interest the interest of His Majesty's Government. The whole swindle of Socialism is wrapped up in this phrase, and just as public ownership means, in fact, Government ownership, so, just as surely, public interest under this Government means Government interest.
What is the practical test, as opposed to the ethical test, as to whether any given action decided by the Corporation, for instance, is in the public interest? Surely the answer lies, as in all similar cases, in an effective use of control. We shall be told, no doubt, that an appeal lies finally through the Consumers' Council to the Minister. There can be no question that the Minister is going to be an interested party in the event of any appeal. That fact was conceded by Lord Lucas in another place. That is what happens when the Government go in for ownership as opposed to final arbitration. Much that hon. Gentlemen opposite have done during the last four years is bad: none of it is good. Of it all that which is the most insolent, is the way they have seemed to suggest the inevitable identification of the expression "public interest" with their own party ends.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am a little surprised that we have been allowed to go so far in this Debate without any legal guidance. I do not know how many hon. Gentlemen opposite who are not lawyers really feel sure they could make sense of this Clause. I am quite certain there are very few who could be sure, and quite certainly any attempt to do so must turn on highly technical considerations: not considerations of steel technique, but considerations of legal technique and the technical use of words. I really do not think the House is in a position to follow the argument without legal advice. If one tries to leave out the unnecessary verbiage of paragraph (b), I think this is putting fairly what it means:
It shall be the general duty of the Corporation to avoid showing undue preference and exercising unfair discrimination except in the way of ordinary commercial considerations or for the public interest.
2.0 a.m.
I am sure the Law Officer from Scotland will advise the House and correct me if I am putting that unfairly. That is what the Clause, in effect, says, and to the eye of common sense it seems quite plain that that is its meaning. What can be "unfair discrimination" or "undue preference" which does not count somehow as an "ordinary commercial consideration" or because it is "for the public interest?" It is not a conception which, using language in the ordinary sense, it is possible to follow.
Presumably, an "unfair discrimination" or an "undue preference" is one which is not covered by "ordinary commercial considerations" or "for the public interest" and the words at the end of the sentence, on the face of them, make complete nonsense of the words "undue" and "unfair." These may be terms of art that have been defined by the courts and if they are so definable and have been so defined as to make lines 10 to 13 really mean something, is it not right to allow the House to be told that by one of the Law Officers to the Crown? Otherwise, the Treasury Bench have not a leg to stand on.

Mr. Eccles: I think. I know what the paragraph means. If I understood the Parliamentary Secretary right, he was saying that in a time of scarcity or emergency it is necessary to have a system of priorities or allocations, and I would


agree with him that it is in the public interest, when some material is very scarce, that it should be guided into certain channels that it might not go into for purely commercial reasons.
But is it a good thing to give the Corporation the duty of judging what that deviation from commercial distribution should be, or not? I am strongly against putting this duty on the Corporation. I think it is quite right to have allocation systems and various systems of priority, as we did in the war, but they must be open and seen by everybody, and the principles upon which they are founded must come from the Ministers concerned, and those who have to operate the system must have some form of appeal.
In the war we worked the Raw Materials Committee very well when steel of the Second Schedule varieties was allocated to all users in this country; but then the principles upon which the allocation was made were laid down by the Government as a whole and all consumers came to that Committee once every three months either in person or through the Department responsible for that. They staked their claims and heard other people stake their claims, which is a fair and above-board method of allocating scarce material like steel.
This, however, is something quite new, because here the Corporation itself is an interested party which has laid upon it another duty—to make both ends meet. Is it not going to say this when there is some material that is scarce: "It would be better to put that to our subsidiary rather than to some other firm that wants that raw material"? Is it reasonable to leave it to the Corporation to be the judge as between two consumers, one of which is its own subsidiary and for whose financial result it is responsible, and the other its rival and for whose financial result it is not responsible at all?
When the Parliamentary Secretary talks about exports, I quite agree that there may not be very many direct exports of Second Schedule products but I expect the hon. Gentleman was really thinking of guiding raw materials to the firms which are making goods for export, and certainly that has been one of the chief reasons put up in another place for retaining these words "from the public interest."
I do not know whether the Minister is aware that if he leaves these words in the Clause he is breaking a treaty which he has made with practically all the countries in the world, and especially with the United States. They are contrary to Article 29 of the Havana Treaty, which I will read to the House:
Each Member undertakes if it establishes or maintains a state enterprise, wherever located, or grants to any enterprise, formally or in effect, excessive or special privileges, such enterprise shall, in its purchases and sales involving either imports or exports, act in a manner consistent with the general principles of non-discriminatory treatment prescribed in this Charter for governmental measures affecting imports or exports by private traders.
The next sub-paragraph goes on to make this even more clear, but I will not trouble the House with it.
It is perfectly clear that the Government have undertaken an international obligation in regard to a nationalised industry not to discriminate in this way. The sooner the right hon. Gentleman takes these words back the better for his Government, which have already got into trouble with the United States for preaching multilaterialism when they think they can impress the Americans, and acting in a contrary way when they do anything at all.
Although, under Article 22 of the Charter, there are certain escape Clauses of a strictly temporary nature, here we are enacting a Bill which is a permanent piece of legislation; and into that permanent legislation we are writing power for the Corporation to discriminate and give undue preference whenever they consider it to be in the public interest. And are told by the Minister responsible that that has a direct connection with the export trade. I think it is time that the Government made up their minds whether or not they really stand by the obligation they sign when they want to please foreign countries. For my part, I regret Article 29 of the Havana Treaty, but the Government have put their name to it. Either we have a Government of honour or we have not, and we should like to know which it is.
But on the home market, which is much more important, it is not right to put this discrimination in the power of a Corporation where no publicity will come upon their actions, where the whole of what one might call the allocation system can be transferred and done in


the dark on any little recommendation that any Minister may send down to say, "I have a friend who needs a bit of steel; will you please discriminate in favour of him?" That is not the way we should legislate in this country, and therefore I hope the House will not disagree with the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Renton: Assuming that this Clause does make sense—which is very doubtful indeed in view of what has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles)—may we consider for one moment what it really means, when regarded in the light of Clause 4. In Clause 4 we find that the Minister may:
give to the Corporation directions of a general character as to the exercise and performance by the Corporation of their functions … in relation to matters which appear to him to affect the national interest, and the Corporation shall give effect to any such directions.
The courts would naturally take note of the fact that whereas "national interest" is used in line 18, in line 13 of Clause 10 the words "public interest" are used. There is an old and well established rule of the interpretation of the Acts which this Parliament passes that where different words are used they must be assumed to have a different meaning. If the expression "public interest" in Clause 3 has a different meaning from "national interest" in Clause 4, the right hon. Gentleman ought to tell us precisely what the difference is. That is the first matter I wish to put to the Minister.
The second point is, bearing in mind that the Minister may give directions to the Corporation of a general character, is it to be assumed that among matters on which the Minister can give directions of a general character will be this general duty mentioned in Clause 3 of the Corporation so avoiding showing undue preference and exercising undue discrimination? If that is so, the position is quite intriguing, and if that were the correct interpretation of the way the Minister can, under Clause 4, give general directions as to the way the Corporation are to exercise their power under Clause 3, then the view which has been taken that the Corporation are going to have a responsibility, which we think they

should not have, of arranging priorities for the delivery of steel, would not apply.
In any event, whatever the position we should clearly know, and the matter is not clear. I find it surprising that this Bill should have got as far as it has and yet this matter remains so fascinatingly vague. Of course, that is because of the Guillotine, but the point is that this Bill is becoming part of the law of the land. We hope it will not, but it may do so, and at any rate the people at the next General Election will, if they exercise their democratic duty correctly, have to get hold of the Bill and try to knock some sense into it, though I do not envy them their task. I hope I have explained my points fairly well, and I hope, seeing the Patronage Secretary has not arrived, that we shall have something in the way of a reply from the right hon. Gentleman.

2.15 a.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Two questions were asked by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) to which I should like to reply. There is practically no difference between "public interest" and "national interest." I understand that in interpretation the word "public" is looked upon as being rather more limited and local than "national" in this respect, but there is practically nothing in it at all and there is not much reason why one is used more than the other.

Mr. Renton: Then why use different words?

Mr. Strauss: The words are used according to precedent. The hon. Member asked what is the difference, and I have given him the best answer possible after taking legal advice. His second question was: can the general directions given by the Minister under Clause 4 to the Corporation cover matters under Clause 3? The answer is most definitely yes.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. R. J. Taylor (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): Mr. R. J. Taylor (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 277; Noes, 142.

Division No. 227.]
AYES
[2.17 a.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Gibson, G. W.
Mayhew, C. P.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Gilzean, A.
Mellish, R. J.


Albu, A. H.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Messer, F.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mikardo, Ian


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Grenfell, D. R.
Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R.


Attewell, H. C.
Grey, C. F.
Mitchison, G. R.


Austin, H. Lewis
Grierson, E.
Monslow, W.


Awbery, S. S.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Morley, R.


Bacon, Miss A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Baird, J.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Morris, P. (Swansea. W.)


Balfour, A.
Guest Dr. L. Haden
Mort, D. L.


Barstow, P. G.
Gunter, R. J.
Moyle A.


Barton, C.
Guy, W. H.
Nally, W.


Bechervaise A. E.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Berry, H.
Hale, Leslie
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Beswick, F.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Bing G. H. C.
Hamilton Lieut.-Col. R.
Noel-Baker, Capt F. E. (Brentford)


Binns, J.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
O'Brien, T.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hardman, D. R.
Oliver, G. H.


Blyton, W. R.
Hardy, E. A.
Orbach, M.


Boardman, H.
Harrison, J.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Bottomley, A. G.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Palmer, A. M. F.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl Exch'ge)
Haworth, J.
Pargiter, G. A.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Parker, J.


Bramall, E. A.
Herbison, Miss M.
Parkin, B. T.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pearson, A.


Brown, George (Belper)
Hobson, C. R.
Perrins, W.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Holman, P.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Burden, T. W.
Horabin, T. L.
Price, M. Philips


Burke, W. A.
Houghton, Douglas
Pritt, D. N.


Callaghan, James
Hoy, J.
Proctor, W. T.


Carmichael, James
Hubbard, T.
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hughes, Emrys (S Ayr)
Randall, H. E.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'ton, W.)
Ranger, J.


Champion, A. J.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Rankin, J.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Rees-Williams. D. R.


Cocks, F. S.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Reeves, J.


Coldrick, W.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Rhodes, H.


Collick, P.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Collindridge, F.
Johnston, Douglas
Robens, A.


Collins, V. J.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Cook, T. F.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Robinson, Kenneth (St Pancras. N.)


Cove, W. G.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Crawley, A.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Keenan, W.
Sargood, R.


Cullen, Mrs.
Kenyon, C.
Scollan, T.


Daines, P.
King, E. M.
Segal, Dr. S.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Kinley, J.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Kirby, B. V.
Sharp, Granville


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Lang, G.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lavers, S.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Shurmer, P.


Deer, G.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Leonard, W.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Delargy, H. J.
Levy, B. W.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Diamond, J.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Simmons, C. J.


Dobbie, W.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Skeffington, A. M.


Dodds, N. N.
Lindgren, G. S.
Skinnard, F. W.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Logan, D. G.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Dumpleton C. W.
Longden, F.
Snow, J. W.


Dye, S.
Lyne, A. W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McAdam, W.
Sparks, J. A.


Edelman, M.
McAllister, G.
Steele, T.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
McEntee, V. La. T.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mack, J. D.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Ewart, R.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)


Farthing, W. J.
McKinlay, A. S.
Stross, Dr. B.


Fernyhough, E.
McLeavy, F.
Stubbs, A. E.


Field, Capt. W. J.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Swingler, S.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sylvester, G. D.


Foot, M. M.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Symonds, A. L.


Forman, J. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Freeman, J. (Watford)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Gallacher, W.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Timmons, J.


Gibbins, J.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Tolley, L.







Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Usborne, Henry
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Wise, Major F. J.


Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Walker, G. H.
Wigg, George
Woods, G. S.


Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Wilkins, W. A.
Wyatt, W.


Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Yates, V. F.


Warbey, W. N.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Watkins, T. E.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)



Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Mr. Bowden.


West, D. G.
Willis, E.





NOES


Agnew, Cmdr, P. G.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Haughton, S. G.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Astor, Hon. M.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Pickthorn, K.


Barlow, Sir J.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pitman, I. J.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hollis, M. C.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Bennett, Sir P.
Hope, Lord J.
Prescott, Stanley


Birch, Nigel
Howard, Hon. A.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Boothby, R.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Raikes, H. V.


Bower, N.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Renton, D.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Keeling, E. H.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Butcher, H. W.
Langford-Holt, J.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Carson, E.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Challen, C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Channon, H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ropner, Col. L.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Linstead, H. N.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smithers, Sir W.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Low, A. R. W.
Spence, H. R.



Lucas, Major Sir J.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Studholme, H. G.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Sutcliffe, H.


De la Bère, R.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McFarlane, C. S.
Taylor, Vice-Adm E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Teeling, William


Donner, P. W.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hertford)


Drayson, G. B.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Drewe, C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Eccles, D. M.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marples, A. E.
Touche, G. C.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Turton, R. H.


Erroll, F. J.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Maude, J. C.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Molson, A. H. E.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Granville, E. (Eye)
Nicholson, G.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gridley, Sir A.
Nield, B. (Chester)
York, C.


Grimston, R. V.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.



Harden, J. R. E.
Nutting, Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Odey, G. W.
Major Conant and


Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Osborne, C.
Bridgadier Mackeson.

Question put accordingly, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 280; Noes, 143.

Division No. 228.]
AYES
[2.28 a.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Balfour, A.
Bottomley, A. G.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Barstow, P. G.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)


Albu, A. H.
Barton, C.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Bechervaise, A. E.
Bramall, E. A.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Berry, H.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Beswick, F.
Brown, George (Belper)


Attewell, H. C.
Bing, G. H. C.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)


Austin, H. Lewis
Binns, J.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.


Awbery, S. S.
Blenkinsop, A.
Burden, T. W.


Bacon, Miss A.
Blyton, W. R.
Burke, W. A.


Baird, J.
Boardman, H.
Callaghan, James




Carmichael, James
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'ton, W.)
Randall, H. E.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Ranger, J.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Rankin, J.


Champion, A. J.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Reeves, J.


Cocks, F. S.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Rhodes, H.


Coldrick, W.
Johnston, Douglas
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Collick, P.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Robens, A.


Collindridge, F.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Collins, V. J.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Cook, T. F.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Robinson, Kenneth (St Pancras N.)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Cove, W. G.
Keenan, W.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Crawley, A.
Kenyon, C.
Sargood, R.


Crossman, R. H. S.
King, E. M.
Scollan, T.


Cullen, Mrs.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Segal, Dr. S.


Daines, P.
Kinley, J.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Kirby, B. V.
Sharp, Granville


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Lang, G.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Lavers, S.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Shurmer, P.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Deer, G.
Leonard, W.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Levy, B. W.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Delargy, H. J.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Simmons, C. J.


Diamond, J.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Skeffington, A. M.


Dobbie, W.
Lindgren, G. S.
Skinnard, F. W.


Dodds, N. N.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Logan, D. G.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Longden, F.
Snow, J. W.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lyne, A. W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Dye, S.
McAdam, W.
Sparks, J. A.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McAllister, G.
Steele, T.


Edelman, M.
McEntee, V. La. T.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Mack, J. D.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)


Ewart, R.
McKinlay, A. S.
Stross, Dr. B.


Farthing, W. J.
McLeavy, F.
Stubbs, A. E.


Fernyhough, E.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Swingler, S.


Field, Capt. W. J.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sylvester, G. O.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Symonds, A. L.


Foot, M. M.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Forman, J. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Freeman, J. (Watford)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Gallacher, W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Timmons, J.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Tolley, L.


Gibbins, J.
Mayhew, C. P.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Gibson, C. W.
Mellish, R. J.
Usborne, Henry


Gilzean, A.
Messer, F.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Walker, G. H.


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Mikardo, Ian.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Grenfell, D. R.
Mitchison, G. R.
Warbey, W. N.


Grey, C. F.
Monslow, W.
Watkins, T. E.


Grierson, E.
Morley, R.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mort, D. L.
West, D. G.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Moyle, A.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Gunter, R. J.
Nally, W.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Guy, W. H.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Wigg, George


Hale, Leslie
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Wilkins, W. A.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
O'Brien, T.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Hardman, D. R.
Orbach, M.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hardy, E. A.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Harrison, J.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Pargiter, G. A.
Willis, E.


Haworth, J.
Parker, J.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Parkin, B. T.
Wise, Major F. J.


Herbison, Miss M.
Pearson, A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Peart, T. F.
Woods, G. S.


Hobson, C. R.
Perrins, W.
Wyatt, W.


Holman, P.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Yates, V. F.


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Popplewell, E.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Horabin, T. L.
Porter, E. (Warrington)



Houghton, Douglas
Price, M. Philips
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hoy, J.
Pritt, D. N.
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Hubbard, T.
Proctor, W. T.
Mr. Bowden.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Pursey, Comdr. H.








NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Harvey, Air-Comdre A. V.
Odey, G. W.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Haughton, S. G.
Osborne, C.


Astor, Hon. M.
Head, Brig A. H.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Barlow, Sir J.
Hollis, M. C.
Pickthorn, K.


Beamish, Maj T. V. H.
Hope, Lord J.
Pitman, I. J.


Bennett, Sir P.
Howard, Hon. A.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Birch, Nigel
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Prescott, Stanley


Boothby, R.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Bower, N.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Raikes, H. V.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Keeling, E. H.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Langford-Holt, J.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Butcher, H. W.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Carson, E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Challen, C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Channon, H.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Ropner, Col. L.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Linstead, H. H.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Smithers, Sir W.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Low, A. R. W.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Spence, H. R.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Studholme, H. G.


De la Bère, R.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Sutcliffe, H.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
McFarlane, C. S.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Donner, P. W.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Teeling, William


Drayson, G. B.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Drewe, C.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Eccles, D. M.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Erroll, F. J.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Touche, G. C.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Marples, A. E.
Turton, R. H.


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Maude, J. C.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Molson, A. H. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)




Williams, C. (Torquay)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Granville, E. (Eye)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gridley, Sir A.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
York, C.


Grimston, R. V.
Nicholson, G.



Harden, J. R. E.
Nield, B. (Chester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Major Conant and


Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Nutting, Anthony
Mr. Wingfield Digby.

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 13, insert:
The Corporation shall, before the general date of transfer, prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme showing the manner in which they propose to exercise the rights conferred on them by the holding of interests in publicly-owned companies so as to secure for those companies the largest measure of autonomy consistent with the proper discharge by the Corporation of their duties under this Act, and the Minister shall lay a copy of such scheme before each House of Parliament.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is one of the Amendments made in the Lords which the Government cannot accept, not because they disagree with the spirit or the motive behind the movers of this Amendment in another place, but because they feel that it is impracticable, and that the actual proposition, as set out in the Amendment, is

not one which it would really be reasonable to put before the Corporation. The idea behind the Amendment, as I understand it, is that it is desirable that the Corporation should work out, as soon as possible, the functional relationship between itself and the various companies which will become its property; and that it is desirable that that relationship should be established at a very early date, and that there should be some scheme, or organisation—some plan—established which will set out precisely what the relationships are, or should be, between the various companies concerned, and between the companies concerned and the Corporation.
There is no doubt—and I concede it straight away—that one of the major difficulties of the Corporation will be to establish, and to work out, proper relationships between itself and the com-


panies which it owns, so that it will be able to give that proper direction and leadership which is so necessary in order to make this industry efficient and to inculcate the spirit which we all desire, while at the same time leaving with the various companies concerned the initiative and that measure of independence which we all agree they ought to have. We all agree that that will not be easy, and it will be an important and early task of the Corporation. That is one thing. To say that it is to be a duty of the Corporation, before the day of transfer, to draw up some such plan, and to present that plan to the Minister and to the House is, I suggest, asking the Corporation to do something which is utterly impossible. Anyone who has had anything to do with large-scale industrial organisation will know how utterly ridiculous it would be to impose upon any holding company such an obligation.
The relationships between holding companies and their subsidiaries have evolved over a long period. There has never been a time when anyone in a holding company has said, "This is our plan, our final plan; we shall always abide by this; by this plan we establish certain relationships between ourselves and our subsidiary companies." It has never happened that way. This relationship has been evolved over a long period of years, and, finally, after this evolution, we have got in the holding companies and their subsidiaries different organisational structures which bear little relationship to each other. If one compares the organisation in Unilever with that in I.C.I., one will find them quite different, and if one looks at the many big industrial organisations in America, as well as in other parts of the world, one will find a large variety of schemes adapted to the particular needs of the industry.
If the Corporation is to be asked to set about such a task in a few months' time, before it has been able to find out fully the exact position of each company, and the personalities concerned in each, and has also to draw up a plan which is to be final, so that the two Houses of Parliament can be shown how the organisation is to work, we are asking something which is quite impossible. However experienced the men concerned may be, they could not draw up a plan

which could claim to have any finality about it; if this demand were persisted in, only a plan of little value could be produced.
This Amendment, although it has a laudable intention, suggests a method of procedure which is quite impracticable. It is a method which was never suggested when the Bill was in this House, and it is not because there is any dispute on principle, but because the idea is completely impracticable that we ask the House to disagree with the Amendment.

Mr. Lyttelton: I have seldom listened to such an extraordinary speech as that which has just come from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman. He said that nobody with any knowledge of business organisation on a big scale need have a plan to deal with his purchases. All that is asked for is that a relationship between the Corporation and underlying companies should be worked out actually before the vesting. In all industrial amalgamations—and I have engaged in several such amalgamations during my life—the plan of what is to happen is available when the scheme comes up; but the Government come along and say, "Oh, we shall wait a little longer." Nobody for one moment thinks that any plan made in this "vale of tears" by any Government is going to be permanent. Governments are subject to what happens at elections, and human beings are subject to death; and while there is death, there is hope.
In all large-scale industrial amalgamations, one must have some idea, and some object; but what the Minister says is that this Bill is not a working Measure at all. It is purely a political manoeuvre. They have no idea how the scheme is going to work, and we now have revealed to us the complete bankruptcy of policy. There are one or two specific questions which I should like to put to the Minister. For instance, are the underlying companies to have individual powers of borrowing? If I had to deal with so ill thought-out a scheme, I should say so. All the powers of borrowing should be vested in the holding companies. That is what I have always done with holding companies.
2.45 a.m.
Surely those who are about to undertake financial operations involving £350 million ought to know whether the individual


rights of borrowing are to be left intact or to be centralised. Surely, some idea has been worked out as to what happens in regard to sales. A great many of these companies are competing with one another. Have the Government in mind some clearing house? All we learn is that it would be utterly ridiculous to suppose that someone who is about to undertake a great industrial reorganisation has decided upon such matters as central financing or sales. There is nothing in this Amendment which seems to justify the ninepins the Minister was setting up. He says that the scheme would be final, but where is there any suggestion of that? Of course it must evolve, but it must start somewhere. Neither does it say that every detail has to be brought up showing how it is proposed to exercise the rights conferred on the Corporation. No such detailed scheme is envisaged by the Amendment.
What we expect of a Government who preen themselves on being planners is some idea of what they are going to do with these assets. But the Government have the effrontery to stand up and say that they have not the slightest idea, but that it will all come out in the wash and be all right. We have a number of Ministers in the Government who act in a most admirable way. They have shown how they do it by co-ordinating everything in the docks, and this is the kind of thing to which we can look forward. "What would be more ridiculous," they say, "than to suppose that we have the least idea of knowing what we shall do when we have acquired the underlying companies." I really think that the late hour and the hot weather have got the Government down earlier than I expected. I hope we shall be given rather more cogent arguments why this Clause is to be rejected than we have heard so far.

Mr. Frederic Harris: I am glad that I have been called to speak in this Debate, because on three previous occasions when I have wanted to say something a Member opposite has got up and stopped me from speaking. The statement we have just heard from the Minister is a most extraordinary one. He comes forward with this scheme of nationalisation, on which Members opposite have said so much to the country, and says that the Government do not

know what they are going to do when they take over the industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did not say that."] I clearly heard him say that the Government could not possibly have any plans yet but must wait until the time comes. Obviously, when an industry is being taken over on such a large scale there must be a plan set out in advance as to what the Government are going to do.
If the Minister is as clever as his supporters think, let him tell us right away what the overall plan is and whether it is based on the fact that there is to be a shortage or surplus of steel in the next five years. That is a very vital point in this consideration of what is going to happen. When firms are being amalgamated one does not wait until the time comes for the amalgamation before putting a plan into operation, otherwise waste and expense would follow immediately after the transaction had taken place.
From a business point of view, the Minister just now started referring to Lever Brothers and the I.C.I., and tried to say that one cannot imagine any basis of policy between two such organisations. Of course, there is. They are different types of business in every way, but as far as the basic principles of operation are concerned, they are quite identical. There is nothing wrong about that. How, honestly, can the Minister say to this House this morning, that they have not yet worked out any scheme or plan? This is what I understood him to say; that he is waiting for the date when the vesting day comes into operation. I hope the Minister will put me right, if I am mistaken, but I thought he certainly said that.
If not, perhaps, he will tell us if he is actually waiting until the vesting date comes—a date which may never arise, which is what he may have at the back of his mind, really. Perhaps, he hopes to goodness that it will never come into operation and that he may not have to worry about it, which may be a point. Is the Minister really saying he is going to wait until the details of the plan are worked out? Surely, that is an unbelievable statement and, at this hour of the morning, are we to listen to matters of such vital importance while he makes, what I suggest, is a very poor statement?

Mr. Hollis: The House must be a little terrified, not so much by the


Minister's rejection of this Amendment, as by the reasons he gave for the rejection. I can understand he might have certain considerations to bring to bear upon the wording of the Amendment but we were frightened more by the reasons for the rejection than by the fact of the rejection.
As far as the right hon. Gentleman's arguments had any point, surely, the point they lead to is not so much for rejection as to the amendment of the Bill. We have had experience with other nationalised industries of confessions afterwards by responsible Ministers that they had no knowledge whatsoever of the policy that they were going to pursue. We had in another place, the confession by Lord Lucas that it may be nine years before the technique is worked out in some of the diverse interests of the steel industry.
It is a new thing when we have a right hon. Gentleman introducing a Bill and himself confessing that he has no information whatever of what he is going to do with these powers when they are given to him. Yet, only a few minutes ago, we had to go into the Division Lobby to vote that the Corporation should be the sole judge of what was the public interest. Apparently, in one Amendment it is absolutely crystal clear to the Corporation what is the public interest, and a few minutes afterwards we are told in another Amendment, that the Corporation or the Minister has no knowledge of what they are going to do and what is the public interest.
Our minds are further confused by these new distinctions between the public and national interest. According to the Minister the public interest is more limited locally than in the national interest, whatever that may mean. The meaning entirely escapes me, but I think it would be greatly to the advantage of the House if we could be told what meaning is attached to them. It would be still more to the advantage of the House if we could be given some assurance that this legislation will not, to the terror of the nation, come into operation until, at any rate, the first glimmerings of a plan of the relationship between the component parts of it are present to the mind of the Government.

Mr. P. Roberts: I have listened to a number of speeches from the right hon. Gentleman, many of them weak speeches, but I must say I have never listened to such a weak speech as that which we have had on this occasion. I only regret that at this time of the night that speech will not be published in the newspapers. I feel if it was published it would wake up a lot of people who have woolly ideas about the Socialist method of nationalisation. I regret that the Minister may get away with it on this occasion because of the hour of the night. He knew his case was weak because he used the old tactics of trying to read into the Amendment something which was not there in order that he could knock it down. He read into the Amendment that the plan would be a hard and fast one which would have to stand for always, which obviously is not the intention of the Amendment at all. When referring to industries and their subsidiaries he used the words "Can one expect industries to say 'This is the plan. We shall always abide by this'?". I ask him why he uses the word "always"? There is no suggestion this should be a rigid plan: it is only that there should be some indication to the House of Commons and to industry, so that industry can be able to plan in advance.
Secondly, I noticed that he used the words, "It will be a very long time before the scheme can be produced, and a general scheme would be of very little value." May I ask when the time will be when the plan will be produced? There is going to be a vesting day. If it is impossible for the board to produce the plan before vesting day how long after that date will it be? We have seen the chaos that arose in the coal industry when there was nationalisation without proper plans. Are we to have the same thing here? It is fantastic that the Minister should come down here and say a general scheme would be of very little value. It would be of great value if people were able to plan their capital investment in this industry.
The Minister then went on to say that the plan would be impractical. What a wonderful example of Socialist planning. We have heard for years that when we had Socialism we should be able to plan in advance. This is a real example of planning in which they say the general


plan would be impracticable. It is obvious to me and to a number of people that the Government are really experimenting with the steel industry in the form of nationalisation. This is an experiment being made at this time when we are facing financial difficulties with an industry vital to all other industries, and to our lives. Since the end of the war, exports from steel products have doubled and in fact they represent 47 per cent. of our total exports and yet with this vital factor the Government think they can experiment. I have never heard such a disgraceful speech from the Minister and I hope it gets the full publicity it deserves.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I make no apology to the House for speaking at this late hour, but there has been no previous opportunity for discussing this question and it is the duty of the House to consider what is an extremely important point. What the Government will not face up to is that they are scrapping an arrangement which at the present time is working extremely well. There is the Iron and Steel Federation and the various constituent boards: there was the Steel Board with the control prices. This Board reported to the Minister, who, under the control of this House, reported to Parliament. It was an existing arrangement, working extremely well and nobody can dispute that fact.
3.0 a.m.
The Government are scrapping that arrangement at a time of grave national emergency when our exports are more important that ever before and when this successful arrangement is producing 50 per cent. of our exports using steel or steel products. If the hon. Member opposite seems to think this is a matter to laugh about it shows the utter sense of irresponsibility he has with regard to our national difficulties, because it should be very much on the conscience of hon. Members opposite that at a time of crisis they are scrapping something which is making such a contribution to our industrial wellbeing. It is not a matter to be waved on one side as if the point was a frivolous one.
The hon. Member has not been showing great sensitivity during the evening to any suggestion that the Government have a plan for running the industry. What is that plan? What are they doing

about it? The Minister has not given any indication whatsoever as to what will happen to the Iron and Steel Federation which at present forms a very important part of our arrangements. I say it is a criminal act to scrap an arrangement that is working well and not to say what substitute will be put in place of it.
Price-fixing arrangements which are extremely difficult and complicated have been taken over by the Department of the Ministry and we do not know how the function will be carried out in the future. We do not know what the relationship will be between the board and the subsidiaries. I say deliberately in our present difficulties it really is a criminal act to attempt to pass this Bill without putting forward some scheme as to how it is to be done.
Hon. Members opposite may say, "It is too soon"; or "We have not had time to think it out"; or "We do not know." But they have had considerable warning. May I remind them of the words of the Secretary of State for War, on 11th June, 1946:
Unfortunately, while the Labour movement has quite properly focused upon the fundamental principles and ideals of Socialism, little attention has been paid to the extremely difficult technical administrative problems which the carry-out of nationalisation involved. We stated our principles when power appeared to be remote. But now that we have gained power we recognise our limitations and shortcomings in the field of preparation. There has been, I regret to say, very little guidance on detail, and so we have had to improvise in the light of existing circumstances.
That was in June, 1946. Whatever were the words of the Government, their supporters should have read, marked, learned and inwardly digested those occasional words of wisdom from the Secretary of State for War.
Let me take a further statement he made on 2nd May, 1948:
There was far too little detailed preparation in nationalisation, and we found ourselves with legislation that had to be completed without the necessary blueprints, on which we could have proceeded much more expeditiously in the right direction.
When the mining industry was nationalised, for example—this had been on the Labour Party programme for 50 years—we thought we knew all about it. The fact of the matter was that we did not. In the preparation of legislation we found ourselves up against extraordinary difficulties. Now that the administration is being run by a public board, still more difficulties are being exposed.


In view of those speeches, the present action of the Government in rejecting this Amendment has been beyond criminality because all this Amendment requires them to do is not to prepare their plan now—which in fact I should have thought was an extremely reasonable requirement for the country—but that the Corporation shall prepare and submit a scheme to the Minister. The Corporation must accept the direction of the Minister on all matters which affect the public interest and if it is to be suggested that the Government have come forward with this Bill with no details at all as to how the Corporation will carry it out, without an idea as to getting the best people they can find, and to give them a blank cheque in regard to producing schemes, then I say that in our present time of crisis it is not good enough, because it does seem—

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The hon. and learned Member seems to be under some misapprehension. He is complaining that the Government have not produced a plan for running the industry. I am not going into the merits of that argument because it has nothing to do with this Amendment at all. This is a suggestion that the Corporation should present to the Government a certain plan by a certain date.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The point I was making was that it was wholly wrong for the Government to bring forward this Bill without a plan; that they ought to have this plan now and they ought to have followed the advice of the Secretary of State for War. In this Amendment we are not asking for that; we were putting the obligation much lower and asking that the Corporation should before the date of transfer prepare a plan, which I should have thought was an extremely reasonable request to make. If it is not done it means that the Corporation will have to proceed under a system of trial and error, and this country at the present time cannot afford any system of trial and error with the industry which is the basis of its export trade.

Mr. Edgar Granville: I have listened to most of the Minister's explanations and his replies to the various new Clauses and Amendments: and I was frankly very surprised at the

lack of reality on the part of the right hon. Gentleman in not accepting this Amendment, which was moved by the Liberal peers in another place. I am not sure whether the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was prepared in his own Department, or whether it was prepared in the Treasury, but I should have thought that his refusal to accept the Amendment was purely academic. If we are about to face an economic crisis or blizzard in this country, as had been referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, I cannot imagine that the Chancellor of the Exchequer—in an industry which will have the power of life or death over not only our internal production and manufacture of engineering industries, but in the majority of the export trades—will allow the Minister to leave with the Corporation absolute and complete control over the iron and steel industry in the six, nine, or 12 vital months ahead. I think the reply of the right hon. Gentleman is academic, and I cannot see that the Chancellor will do anything other than say that absolute power must be retained by the Minister, and must not be handed to the Corporation to begin the gigantic experiment of how this is to be carried out in the terms of the Bill.
As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) said, there is nothing extremely difficult about carrying out the suggestion in this Amendment. There is a great deal of experience available in the ordinary technique of holding companies taking over and consolidating, and so on. I should have thought that through the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir A. Duncan), and the Iron and Steel Federation, and with the tremendous control which the Minister and his Department had over this industry during the war, all the taxation and financial information required was available. Surely, as has been said, this would have been a unique opportunity, in this experimental process of nationalising industries, to prepare a scheme before vesting date, benefiting by trial and error, so that the House and the Minister might keep the absolute control of this vital industry during the economic crisis which lies ahead.
I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to change his attitude. So far, I do not


think he has accepted one Amendment. I appeal to him to retain the control which the march of events will force him to retain.

Mr. Mitchison: I do not believe that the Opposition have the faintest idea of what this Amendment means. At any rate, I have not the faintest idea, after hearing four of them talking on it. This is not something that the Government have to do. This is a scheme which the Corporation have to prepare
showing the manner in which they propose to exercise the rights conferred on them …
If it had stopped there there might have been some sense in the Amendment, but it goes on to say:
so as to secure for those companies the largest measure of autonomy consistent with the proper discharge by the Corporation of their duties under this Act.
I fail to see what sort of a scheme it is to be and what its purpose is and what it is to be about. One object which it appears to secure for the individual companies is the largest measure of autonomy consistent with the proper discharge by the Corporation of its duties under the Act. How to prepare a scheme to do that is entirely past my understanding and, I believe, of the understanding of the ordinary man in the street, who is supposed to know the law on these matters. Certainly, the scheme as prepared can have no relation whatever to the various schemes I have heard put forward in the last half dozen speeches.

Mr. Henry Strauss: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) seems to think it perfectly natural that the assets of some of the most famous companies in this country and in the world, which are at present operating with great success, should be transferred to the Corporation without the Corporation being under any obligation of any kind to disclose what they intend to do when they get those assets. One of the most alarming things about this Debate is that so many hon. Members opposite seem to be perfectly content that they should remain completely in the dark as to what are the intentions of the Government and of the Corporation. Certain duties are placed upon the Corporation under the Bill, and it would not be entirely unreasonable for the Corporation to indicate, before they receive the assets,

some idea of their plans and what they are going to do with them.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis), that one could have understood it if the Government had had some criticism of the particular wording of this Amendment. That is not their objection at all. Their objection is to the Corporation having any plan of any sort in advance which shall be disclosed to Parliament. I do not agree with those of my hon. Friends who think that there is no precedent in history for what is being done. I think there is, and that is the well-known precedent of the South Sea Bubble when moneys were collected for a purpose subsequently to be disclosed. These assets will all be transferred to the Corporation for a purpose subsequently to be disclosed. The parallel to the South Sea Bubble is one with which back benchers on the opposite side are perfectly satisfied.

Mr. Gallacher: I heard the Minister say he had nothing against the Amendment in principle, but that there were reasons why it should not be accepted. I feel that if I made my position clear on this Amendment it would help to shorten the discussion. This is a very good Amendment, but we have to consider the source from which it comes. It raises the old philosophical problem: can good come from evil? Whether the Amendment is good, bad or indifferent I and my associates on these benches are determined to remain "disagreeables."

3.15 a.m.

Mr. Molson: The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), the solitary representative of the Communist Party, will not expect me to answer the points he has made. I want to reply to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). The Measures of nationalisation introduced by this Government have, broadly speaking, all been of a certain pattern. After long deliberation and many rumours of conflicting views in the Government, it was decided to introduce a Measure effecting a certain degree of nationalisation in the steel industry. This pattern is entirely different from the pattern of the Act to nationalise the coal mining industry. Having had experience of the lack of preparation which has been shown after the nationalisation of the coal mines, it is natural that the Opposition should be anxious to know why and how the Government hope to make a


success of this entirely new pattern of nationalisation.
I am not suggesting for a moment that in many respects it is not a great improvement upon the earlier pattern, but certainly it is proposing to do something which has not previously been done in this country. At present, with the approval of the Government, large development schemes are being undertaken in the steel industry. I read in "The Economist" this week that as a result of the introduction of this nationalisation Measure the steel companies which are to be taken over are now unable to raise any further capital in the ordinary way for the carrying out of the modernisation and development plan which was approved at an earlier stage by the Government. I understand that nearly all the finance is provided at present by the Finance Corporation for Industry. Surely it is a matter of the utmost importance to all those companies and to the Finance Corporation for Industry, which is at present providing the finance, that there should be some reasonable expectation that in the comparatively near future there shall be a general outline of a plan for the steel industry.

Mr. Mitchison: Has the hon. Gentleman observed that all this has nothing whatever to do with the Amendment, which is merely designed to secure that the old companies and the old boys go on playing the old game in the old way, independently?

Mr. Molson: I understood that it was the expressed wish of the Government that that great development plan, which was put forward by the steel industry early in this Parliament, and was approved by the Government, would be continued until nationalisation took place. At present—and the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—very considerable developments and modernisation are taking place in the steel industry by those old boys running the old companies with the old names and the old reputations. It is because the Government have had the wisdom to realise that the old boys running the old firms with the old reputations have got established markets for their well-known old quality products that the structure of this Bill is to maintain that good will, and give a measure of autonomy to these companies.
If this new system is to be devised to establish a finance holding company, and if, as I understand it, that was the intention, it should be left to those existing and well-established concerns, nearly all of which are rapidly increasing in reputation at present in reply to an appeal of the Government. It is reasonable and natural that the holding company which is being set up should be asked to enter into discussions with the industry and the Government so that there may be some general plan for the administration of the industry after this Measure has come into operation.

Major Legge-Bourke: I once again find myself in a difficulty in understanding what the Government mean by rejecting this Amendment because, as I understand it, the Minister has not got a plan for rearranging the industry when the Corporation takes over. He is declining to make it absolutely necessary for the Corporation to make a scheme. Therefore, we are left in the dark completely, except for the one reference at the beginning of the next Clause, which says that the Minister may give directions to the Corporation.
At an earlier stage, on 9th May, the Minister went so far as to say that he hoped the Minister, whoever he might be, would not be forced to give any directions to the Corporation. Where do the Government and the Socialist Party stand? Are they going into nationalisation completely blindfold? Do they expect the country to go with them? I do not think the country is over keen on the idea. It must be abundantly clear by now that past experience has shown that nationalisation does not start with all the best advantages if the vesting day takes place before we know what is to happen, and before the industry itself knows.
This Amendment would show the industry what is to happen when the Corporation takes over; the Corporation would know; the Minister would know, and would be in a position to tell the House. As it is, no one will know, unless it is one of the great secrets the Government intend to keep and produce again as the price of keeping people's minds off something else. It is one of the greatest travesties of the use of this House that we should be asked to legislate without


having the slightest idea of what this nationalisation will bring about, with the exception of the fact that a great number of companies are to come under public ownership. If that is what the Socialist Party call parliamentary democracy it is not my idea of it.
Perhaps it is the conception of parliamentary democracy held by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). In Russia, at any rate, we know there has been nationalisation of the steel industry for 25 years. The only decent parts of it are those equipped with either British or American machinery. What is good enough for Russia is

not good enough for this country. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have appreciated that, if nothing else. This is one of the most disgraceful things the House has ever been asked to do. How the Government have the presumption to ask us to do this I do not know.

Mr. Whiteley: Mr. Whiteley rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 267; Noes, 140.

Division No. 229.]
AYES
[3.26 a.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Dodds, N. N.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'ton, W.)


Albu, A. H.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Dumpleton, C. W.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Dye, S.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)


Attewell, H. C.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Austin, H. Lewis
Edelman, M.
Johnston, Douglas


Awbery, S. S.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)


Bacon, Miss A.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Baird, J.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)


Balfour, A.
Ewart, R.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)


Barstow, P. G.
Farthing, W. J.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Barton, C.
Fernyhough, E.
Keenan, W.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Field, Capt. W. J.
Kenyon, C.


Berry, H.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
King, E. M.


Beswick, F.
Foot, M. M.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.


Bing, G. H. C.
Forman, J. C.
Kinley, J.


Binns, J.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Lang, G.


Blenkinsop, A.
Freeman, J. (Watford)
Lavers, S.


Blyton, W. R.
Gallacher, W.
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Bottomley, A. G.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Gibbins, J.
Leonard, W.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Gibson, C. W.
Levy, B. W.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Gilzean, A.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Bramall, E. A.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Lindgren, G. S.


Brown, George (Belper)
Grenfell, D. R.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Grey, C. F.
Logan, D. G.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Grierson, E.
Longden, F.


Burden, T. W.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Lyne, A. W.


Burke, W. A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
McAdam, W.


Callaghan, James
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
McAllister, G.


Carmichael, James
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
McEntee, V. La. T.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Gunter, R. J.
Mack, J. D.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Guy, W. H.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Champion, A. J.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
McKinlay, A. S.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hale, Leslie
McLeavy, F.


Cocks, F. S.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Coldrick, W.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Collick, P.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Collindridge, F.
Hardman, D. R.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Cook, T. F.
Hardy, E. A.
Mann, Mrs. J.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Harrison, J.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Cove, W. G.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Crawley, A.
Haworth, J.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Messer, F.


Cullen, Mrs.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Daines, P.
Herbison, Miss M.
Mikardo, Ian.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hobson, C. R.
Mitchison, G. R.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Holman, P.
Monslow, W.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Morley, R.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Horabin, T. L.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Deer, G.
Houghton, Douglas
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hoy, J.
Mort, D. L.


Delargy, H. J.
Hubbard, T.
Moyle, A.


Diamond, J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Nally, W.




Neal, H. (Claycross)
Scollan, T.
Usborne, Henry


Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Segal, Dr. S.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Walker, G. H.


Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Sharp, Granville
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


O'Brien, T.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Wallace, H. W. (Wallthamstow, E.)


Oliver, G. H.
Shurmer, P.
Warbey, W. N.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Watkins, T. E.


Palmer, A. M. F.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Pargiter, G. A.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Pearson, A.
Simmons, C. J.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Peart, T. F.
Skeffington, A. M.
West, D. G.


Perrins, W.
Skinnard, F. W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinbgh, E.)


Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Smith, C. (Colchester)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Popplewell, E.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Sorenson, R. W.
Wigg, George


Price, M. Philips
Sparks, J. A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Pritt, D. N.
Steele, T.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Proctor, W. T.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Pursey, Comdr. H.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Randall, H. E.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Ranger, J.
Stross, Dr. B.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Rankin, J.
Stubbs, A. E.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Rees-Williams, D. R.
Swingler, S.
Willis, E.


Reeves, J.
Sylvester, G. O.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Rhodes, H.
Symonds, A. L.
Wise, Major F. J.


Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Robens, A.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Woods, G. S.


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wyatt, W.


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Yates, V. F.


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Rogers, G. H. R.
Timmons, J.



Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Tolley, L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Sargood, R.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Mr. Snow and Mr. Richard Adams




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Odey, G. W.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Osborne, C.


Astor, Hon. M.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Baldwin, A. E.
Haughton, S. G.
Pickthorn, K.


Barlow, Sir J.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Pitman, I. J.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Bennett, Sir P.
Hollis, M. C.
Prescott, Stanley


Birch, Nigel
Hope, Lord J.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Boothby, R.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Bower, N.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Raikes, H. V.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Renton, D.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Keeling, E. H.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Butcher, H. W.
Langford-Holt, J.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Carson, E.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Challen, C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ropner, Col. L.


Channon, H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Linstead, H. N.
Smithers, Sir W.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Spence, H. R.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Low, A. R. W.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


De la Bère, R.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Teeling, William


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
McFarlane, C. S.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Donner, P. W.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Ponrith)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Drayson, G. B.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Drewe, C.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Touche, G. C.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Turton, R. H.


Erroll, F. J.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Marples, A. E.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Fox, Sir G.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)




Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Maude, J. C.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Molson, A. H. E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
York, C.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)



Granville, E. (Eye)
Neven-Spencs, Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gridley, Sir A.
Nield, B. (Chester)
Mr. Studholme and


Grimston, R. V.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Mr. Wingfield Digby.


Harden, J. R. E.
Nutting, Anthony

Question put accordingly, "That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 266; Noes, 140.

Division No. 230.]
AYES
[3.36 a.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mann, Mrs. J.


Albu, A. H.
Gibbins, J.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Gibson, C. W.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Gitzearo, A.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Messer, F.


Attewell, H. C.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Austin, H. Lewis
Grenfell, D. R.
Mikardo, Ian.


Awbery, S. S.
Grey, C. F.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.


Bacon, Miss A.
Grierson, E.
Mitchison, G. R.


Baird, J.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Monslow, W.


Balfour, A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Morley, R.


Barstow, P. G.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Barton, C.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Gunter, R. J.
Mort, D. L.


Berry, H.
Guy, W. H.
Moyle, A.


Beswick, F.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Nally, W.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hale, Leslie
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Binns, J.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Blyton, W. R.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Bottomley, A. G.
Hardman, D. R.
O'Brien, T.


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Hardy, E. A.
Oliver, G. H.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Harrison, J.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Palmer, A. M. F.


Bramall, E. A.
Haworth, J.
Pargiter, G. A.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Pearson, A.


Brown, George (Belper)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Peart, T. F.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Herbison, Miss M.
Perrins, W.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Burden, T. W.
Hobson, C. R.
Popplewell, E.


Burke, W. A.
Holman, P.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Callaghan, James
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Price, M. Philips


Carmichael, James
Horabin, T. L.
Pritt, D. N.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Houghton, Douglas
Proctor, W. T.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hoy, J.
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Champion, A. J.
Hubbard, T.
Randall, H. E.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Ranger, J.


Cocks, F. S.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'ton, W.)
Rankin, J.


Coldrick, W.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Collick, P.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Reeves, J.


Collindridge, F.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Rhodes, H.


Cook, T. F.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Robens, A.


Cove, W. G.
Johnston, Douglas
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Crawley, A.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, D. T. (Martlepool)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Cullen, Mrs.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Daines, P.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Sargood, R.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Keenan, W.
Scollan, T.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Kenyon, C.
Segal, Dr. S.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
King, E. M.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Sharp, Granville


Deer, G.
Kinley, J.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lang, G.
Shurmer, P.


Delargy, H. J.
Lavers, S.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Diamond, J.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Dodds, N. N.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Levy, B. W.
Simmons, C. J.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Skeffington, A. M.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Skinnard, F. W.


Dye, S.
Lindgren, G. S.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Edelman, M.
Logan, D. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Longdan, F.
Sparks, J. A.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Lyne, A. W.
Steele, T.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McAdam, W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Ewart, R.
McAllister, G.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Farthing, W. J.
McEntee, V. La. T.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)


Fernyhough, E.
Mack, J. D.
Stross, Dr. B.


Field, Capt. W. J.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Stubbs, A. E.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McKinlay, A. S.
Swingler, S.


Foot, M. M.
McLeavy, F.
Sylvester, G. O.


Forman, J. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Symonds, A. L.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Freeman, J. (Watford)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Gallacher, W.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)




Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Willis, E.


Timmons, J.
West, D. G.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Tolley, L.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)
Wise, Major F. J.


Ungoed-Thomas, L.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Usborne, Henry
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Woods, G. S.


Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Wigg, George
Wyatt, W.


Walker, G. H.
Wilkins, W. A.
Yates, V. F.


Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)



Warbey, W. N.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Watkins, T. E.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Mr. Snow and Mr. Richard Adams.


Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith. S.)





NOES


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Harden, J. R. E.
Nutting, Anthony


Astor, Hon. M.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Odey, G. W.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Osborne, C.


Barlow, Sir J.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Haughton, S. G.
Pickthorn, K.


Bennett, Sir P.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Pitman, I. J.


Birch, Nigel
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Boothby, R.
Hollis, M. C.
Prescott, Stanley


Bower, N.
Hope, Lord J.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Raikes, H. V.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Renton, D.


Butcher, H. W.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Carson, E.
Langford-Holt, J.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Challen, C.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Channon, H.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ropner, Col. L.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Linstead, H. N.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smithers, Sir W.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Low, A. R. W.
Spence, H. R.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Studholme, H. G.


De la Bère, R.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Sutcliffe, H.



McCallum, Maj. D.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McFarlane, C. S.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Teeling, William


Donner, P. W.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Drayson, G. B.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Drewe, C.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Touche, G. C.


Erroll, F. J.
Marples, A. E.
Turton, R. H.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Fox, Sir G.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Maude, J. C.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Molson, A. H. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
York, C.


Glanville, E. (Eye)
Nicholson, G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gridley, Sir A.
Nield, B. (Chester)
Commander Agnew and


Grimston, R. V.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Colonel Wheatley

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 13, to insert:
() If any such undue preference or unfair discrimination as aforesaid is shown or exercised or reasonably apprehended, any person affected shall have a right of action for damages, or for an injunction or other relief as may be just.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
3.45 a.m.
I shall have to give the past history of this proposal, otherwise it will not

be clear to the House why we have come to this rather curious situation. When this Bill was first introduced, no provision was made in respect of non-discrimination because it was felt by the Government that it was unnecessary. It was thought that the Corporation, not operating for private profit but set up for the common good, would not want to discriminate between one consumer and another. It seemed very unlikely that they would do so, but there was ample provision in case they should, for anyone who felt aggrieved to bring his


grievance to the Consumers' Council or the Minister. Later on, it was suggested, after certain discussions which I had with representatives of industry, who feared there might be such discrimination, that it would be desirable to put in the Bill some expression of Parliament's intention that there should be no such discrimination.
I agreed to the general proposition that Parliament's intentions should be expressed in the Bill in a way that would not lead to cases being brought to the courts, and it was accepted by everyone concerned, certainly in the discussions I had with the consumers' representatives, that this was not the sort of proposition that should go before the courts so that people could claim damages, but that it was a matter of public policy on which Parliament should express its intentions in the Bill.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I seem to remember the Parliamentary Secretary saying on an earlier Clause that it was necessary to discriminate.

Mr. Strauss: If the hon. and gallant Member will wait he will see the relevance of my hon. Friend's comments in that respect. It was then generally agreed that we should, if possible—and this was a concession I readily made on behalf of the Government—put into the Bill the general intentions of Parliament about non-discrimination in such a way that there would not be appeals to the courts with the Corporation being frequently brought to the courts by people who believed that some competitor had had any preferential delivery from one of the companies. This would cause the Corporation serious difficulty and the courts greater difficulty in deciding matters of that kind.
The first Amendment I put down on Report stage specifically said that no appeal should be made to the courts in respect of any charge of discrimination by anyone who felt aggrieved. We looked at this provision again with the consumers' representatives and came to the conclusion that a better wording would be the one which now appears in the Clause. The wording was such, in our opinion, that although an aggrieved person had a right to go to court, it was exceedingly unlikely he would do so and it was exceedingly unlikely he would

succeed if he went to court. That was in conformity with our agreed general intention on this sort of matter; that questions of normal commercial operation or questions of public interest should not be brought to the courts, as it would be inappropriate that such points should be considered by the courts and moreover the Corporation would be put in a very serious and difficult situation. We therefore brought this Amendment, incorporating this non-discrimination proposal, to the House on Report stage and stated there that it was in our opinion an undoubted fact that if a man was aggrieved he had a right to go to court and get damages, if he could prove his case. It was always our intention, and I think I mentioned it at the time, that there should be no encouragement for people to go to court as it would be undesirable, on general grounds of public interest that this sort of matter should be decided in court.
In another place, it was suggested that although there was probably a right for an aggrieved person to take a matter to court and get damages, there was some doubt about it, and it was undesirable that legislation should be passed about which there was any doubt. The Lord Chancellor looked at this matter and he agreed that there was some doubt, although he was pretty certain a man would have a right to go to court. It was then moved by the Opposition in another place that the man should specifically have the right to go to court to get damages or an injunction. That was a proposal we could not consider sympathetically because it was the reverse of the intention of all of those, including the consumers' representatives, who had previously agreed on this matter. Here was a natural invitation for people to go to court and claim damages and indeed there might be a whole series of actions brought by consumers who believed that, because some competitor had obtained delivery of steel products a week or two before they had, there had been some discrimination against them, and they were entitled to some damages.
We came to the conclusion that while it was absolutely right that there should be no doubt about the position of a person who wanted to go to court and about whether he had the power to do so or not, the only logical thing to do in view of the history of this matter was to say


that this provision about non-discrimination is, as it was intended to be, a declaration of intention by Parliament. Indeed there are many other declarations of intention in this Bill on what the Corporation should or should not do, without any suggestion that the Corporation could be taken to court if it was not carrying out its duty. We thought this should be put on a par with them and that if anyone is aggrieved, he can come to Parliament or to the Consumers' Council. If the Corporation does not carry out Parliament's intention properly, that is the remedy. It is unsuitable for a decision in a court of law, and the question should not be considered and argued on legal grounds—a point very strongly made by the Lord Chancellor. What is a normal commercial practice, whether something comes within that practice or not and what the public interest should be are inappropriate subjects for the courts. I move that we reject the proposal made in another place that people who are aggrieved should be entitled to get damages in the courts of law in respect of charges of discrimination against them. To remove any doubt we should make it perfectly clear there is no right of appeal to the courts in this matter and that the body to put right any grievance or suggestion that there had been discrimination must be Parliament, and the Minister operating directly, or, if necessary, through the Consumers' Council. For that reason I move that we do not agree with the Lords in this Amendment and subsequently I shall move another Amendment in substitution.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that the history of this matter was a curious one. "Curious" was rather a weak word for a story of vacillation, muddle and falsehood almost unrivalled in Parliamentary history. If the Government had arranged their business at a proper hour and we had time to discuss this I think it would be, in the words of Alice, "curiouser and curiouser." The Minister reminded the House that there was no mention of discrimination in the Bill when it was introduced originally, and of course there was no discussion of it during the Committee stage for the very good reason that all the Amendments to the Clause came under the Closure and were never moved.
Then he went on to tell us some, but not all, of this extraordinary story, about which, if I had time, I could speak at length but I will spare hon. Members. We did have an opportunity of moving a new Clause, although we were guillotined out of the other Clause, and at that time we were met firmly and favourably by the Minister, who said he was considering redrafting the Clause to deal with the point about discrimination.
As I understand it, it was never alleged that because Parliament was to say it should not be right for the Corporation to exercise discrimination, automatically there was to go with this, the removal of the right of the injured subject to take the matter to the courts. Why should the fact that Parliament gives general rights against discrimination, remove the right of the individual to go to the courts?
The sole question at issue, and we ought to have had the advantage of the Law Officers of the Crown at this stage, is whether or not someone who has suffered damages or thinks he has suffered damages because of undue preference should have the right to seek action in the courts. What did the Lord Chancellor say about this? The Lord Chancellor said:
I strongly take the view in this case on the general purview of this matter, the individual would have such a right of action.
The Lord Chancellor presumably thought he should have the right of action.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The Lord Chancellor went on deliberately to argue that he should not have that right of action.

Mr. Macmillan: The Lord Chancellor continued—
I do not say it is one of the cases in which I cannot be wrong.
My memory goes to many things on which he thought he could not be wrong: a remarkable change in a short period. He adds
I said at once there was an element of doubt. I do not think that element of doubt would be removed if this Amendment were inserted.
4.0 a.m.
He took the view that it was possible for a subject to bring an action in matters of this kind. If it were possible without the Amendment it would clearly be much more possible with the Amendment which


gives them that specific right. Therefore on the Lord Chancellor's own showing the Amendment merely fortifies what he believed was the meaning of the Clause and was implicit in it. So this rather strange history proceeds and we are now asked to remove an element of doubt—but in what direction? To take away the right of appeal because we must not encourage people to go to the courts. What an extraordinary attitude for the Executive and Parliament to take, that we must not encourage people to use their legal rights and, in order not to encourage them we must take those rights away. What a melancholy story of the rights of the people. First of all the Lord Chancellor says we think there is a right in the courts, but if the Opposition want to do so, they may be more specific about it than the Government—so let us take it away lest it should encourage people to go to the courts.

Mr. Gallacher: Keep out of the courts!

Mr. Macmillan: I hope and we all hope to be able to keep out of the courts, and the hon. Member has had a lot of difficulty, I have no doubt, in doing so.
This is a dangerous thing and we must rely on the broad general intention of Parliament to restrain the Minister. If it is the desire of Parliament that this discrimination should not be exercised, then I should have thought it was also the duty of Parliament to see that the subject has the right of going to the courts in order to make sure that the rights which Parliament wishes him to have, can in fact be enforced by the well known legal system in which the confidence of the subject remains.

Mr. Nigel Birch: I think the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Supply gave most extraordinary reasons for taking away the inalienable right of a British subject who, if he is aggrieved according to law can go to the courts. Where is this right left now? The first point is that the "public interest" under the Bill is to be interpreted by the Corporation and the Corporation may well interpret that in this way. They may say that the "public interest" requires that we shall succeed at all costs. That is probably how they will interpret the term "public interest." We then have an appeal to the Minister who is also admittedly an

interested party. That had been admitted by the Minister to be so.
I would say that this is a very sinister proceeding. The right hon. Gentleman says it is "unsuitable" that they should have any appeal to the courts. Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler all found it extremely "unsuitable" that people should have appeals to the courts and I have no doubt that Louis XIV thought it most "unsuitable" that anyone should be sent to the Bastille except with a lettre de cachet. These things have always been "unsuitable" and surely the doctrine that liberty is safe in the hands of Executive Government, is one which the whole of history tells us is untrue. Why have a trial by jury? It would be much more suitable to commit the man straight away. That is much more reasonable. Why have habeas corpus? Why not lock him up? I know that they do so under Defence Regulations—that is another sign of progress. But the idea that an appeal to the Executive through Parliament is a substitute for the courts—an idea in which hon. Members opposite seem to believe—seems to me to be wholly wrong, and not based on history. It is not supported by anything we see in any of the "stooge" Parliaments abroad. The idea that a majority, just because it is elected, is controlled either by reason or precedent is wrong. It has never been proved in history and no one could say that hon. Gentlemen opposite are controlled either by reason or precedent—particularly by reason. The idea of any kind of protection by Parliament I believe to be wholly fallacious.
A noble Lord said in another place he hoped we should transcend any statutory formula. Surely our business in Parliament is to make statutes as clear, and as definite as possible; and then to see that those statutes are enforced by the impartial tribunal of the courts, not by an appeal to the Minister who is an interested party. I think this is much the most sinister part of this sinister Bill, and I hope it will be thrown out.

Mr. Renton: It may distress hon. Gentlemen opposite to know that what the Government are now proposing is in direct conflict with the Charter of Human Rights to which the Government have committed this country. Article 8 of the Charter states:


Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
That has to be read in the light of Article 17 (2):
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
[An HON. MEMBER: "That has gone, anyhow."] Yes, undoubtedly the Government have infringed the Declaration of Human Rights, possibly before they signed it and certainly very frequently since. This is another example to which I should draw the attention of hon. Members opposite. Article 10 reads:
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations
and later is added, quite separately:
and of any criminal charge against him.
In the light of the fact that the Foreign Secretary has committed the Government to that charter of international rights how dare the right hon. Gentleman put down on the Order Paper this particular Amendment which he now wishes us to support:
That nothing in this section shall be construed as imposing on the Corporation"—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): the hon. Member cannot discuss the alternative Amendment unless it is the wish of the House to discuss the main Question and that Amendment together.

Mr. Renton: It may be that I am at fault in this matter, but I understood from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that in order to support his opposition to the Lords in their Amendment, in order to induce the House to reject it, he was relying on the fact that he had on the Order Paper this substitute Amendment to which I have referred. If I am out of Order I do not wish to pursue the matter.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman did say he would move the Amendment—I do not remember his exact words—when the main Question had been decided. I certainly think it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss them together. They have both been referred to and of course there will be the opportunity of two Divisions.

Mr. Renton: It is clear up to this point that I have been under a misunderstanding and apparently the right and proper thing to do would be for me to withdraw at this stage of the Debate, so that it could proceed strictly in accordance with the Rules of Order.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I view with alarm the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to reject this Amendment. It is a simple Amendment. If any undue preference or unfair discrimination—and both these things are admittedly bad—is shown by this particular body, which has accepted a tremendous responsibility not only to the consumers but to the whole of this country, the Amendment gives any member of the public the right to take steps accordingly. That is a simple, inherent, proper right, and I warn the right hon. Gentleman that any Government that seeks to preclude any citizen of this country from going to court to exercise his right to receive justice is not only dooming that Government to complete loss of all its own prestige, but all the people's faith in it, that may be left. Further, it is lowering the standard of propriety and morality throughout the country. I give that serious warning to the right hon. Gentleman.
As regards the history of the matter, I will not pursue it, but it seems there is very little indeed left between the Government and the Opposition as regards the actual method. It appears to be the intention that the Corporation shall be subject to a check of some sort or other. The right hon. Gentleman may say that there is sufficient check to the public through the Consumers' Council, the Minister and Parliament, but what better check could there be than an aggrieved citizen having the right to go to court. It is quite ridiculous to suggest that such a right will be abused, or that the insertion of such a provision in this Bill is an invitation to litigation. If that were so, every Act of Parliament that is passed, which gives the right to the citizen to go to court, is an invitation to litigation and always has been. Yet it has not been subject to abuse.
If and when the time does arrive when under some particular Act abuses may arise or the right of the litigant degenerates into abuses we will deal with that situation effectively. It does not fall


within the ingenuity of the Government, nor should they ride rough shod over the rights of the people to correct abuses of the administration of justice in this country. Therefore, I most earnestly beg the right hon. Gentleman to allow the rights of justice to run their due and proper course and not to preclude the people of this country from their inherent and proper right to have an appeal to the courts of justice.

4.15 a.m.

Mr. John Foster: The argument of the right hon. Gentleman was even more extraordinary than my hon. Friends appreciated. He began by saying that it was thought that there was a right of appeal to the courts. He said that that right could be exercised, but that the person who went to the courts was very unlikely to suceed and would probably lose. I cannot think why he came to that extraordinary view. Assuming that the right hon. Gentleman is right and that the man can go to the courts, I do not follow his conclusion that the man would lose. If undue preference or unfair discrimination is shown, why should the man lose his case? The right hon. Gentleman did not explain why that was. He seemed to think that without this Clause the man would have such difficulties in making his way before a tribunal that he would suffer defeat. What led the right hon. Gentleman to that odd conclusion?
Let us assume that the man has a right to go to the courts, if he proves his case, he wins, and if he does not, he loses. It is as simple as that. I have tried to find in the Clause the hidden obstacle which must cause him to lose. At the end of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, we find that the man does not have a right to go to the courts. The right hon. Gentleman said several times that if we rejected the Amendment, the man would be deprived of his right to go to the courts. He thought it would be difficult for the courts to decide what "ordinary commercial considerations" were or what "public interest" was. With regard to "public interest" he seemed to advance the very odd theory that the Corporation could judge what "public interest" was but that one of His Majesty's judges could not. Again, that was a complete mystery, because the words "public interest" are capable of interpretation by a nationalised board,

and one would therefore think that they were also capable of interpretation in the courts. Not a bit of it. There is some hidden mystery which makes it quite impossible for the courts to decide.
"Ordinary commercial considerations" are simple words. It might be difficult to decide one way or another in a borderline case, but it must then also be difficult for the board to decide. The courts exist to decide difficult questions of fact between one of His Majesty's subjects and another. But not a bit of it. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that it justified him in depriving the subject of his right, which he began by saying he had, because the words were difficult of interpretation. Surely he knows that any case of importance involves the decision of difficult circumstances. The courts would not otherwise exist. Surely he also knows that tribunals have existed for many years to decide what is undue preference and unfair discrimination.
Has he never heard of the railway rates tribunal, a large part of whose jurisdiction consists of deciding whether the railway rate is or is not discriminatory and whether it is or is not an exercise of undue preference? It has never been advanced anywhere that these tribunals are incapable of doing their job. If one wants to make an invidious distinction, what is even more curious is the fact that His Majesty's judges are, so to speak, higher up the legal hierarchy than the railway rates tribunal, but apparently they are quite incapable of deciding any matter of common sense. It reminds me of the remark that everybody is supposed to know the law of England except His Majesty's judges, who have a court of appeal put over them to put them right. That may be true in theory, but the fact is that undue preference and unfair discrimination are capable of being decided by the tribunals of this country, and they are not made incapable of decision because concerned with them are matters of fact like ordinary commercial considerations and public interest.
Then we turn to the Lord Chancellor, and what does he say? He says there is doubt whether there is or is not the right of access to the courts, and the right hon. Gentleman seemed to echo that doubt at the beginning of his speech. The right hon. Gentleman's doubt was whether a man would succeed in his appeal to the courts, but the Lord Chan-


cellor's doubt was whether or not there was this right of access. We therefore get the Government in this position: they want to perpetuate the doubt, whereas the Amendment would settle it.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Mr. G. R. Strauss indicated dissent.

Mr. Foster: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but can he tell me whether or not there is a right of appeal to the courts. Can he answer "yes" or "no?"

Mr. Strauss: If the House accepts the Amendment I am going to move, there will be no doubt whatsoever.

Mr. Macmillan: No.

Mr. Foster: Where is the Amendment?

Mr. Strauss: The next one on the Order Paper.

Mr. Foster: I must say I still do not understand the right hon. Gentleman. If he is going to remove the doubt altogether, than he is doing very wrong. He started by saying that the man would lose. He seems to have no doubt himself, and I am asking the right hon. Gentleman whether the Lord Chancellor was right in saying that there was a doubt. The right hon. Gentleman's view was that the man was bound to lose. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head; we all heard him. He said that a man might bring it to court, that he would have a lot of difficulty, and would probably lose his case. Why? What would make him lose his case? That is the odd part of it, and it does not seem at all natural that a man should necessarily lose his case if he has the right to appear in the courts.
If the object of the Government is to deprive a man of his right of appeal to the courts we get to this position that where there is such a thing as undue preference or unfair discrimination in the steel world there should be no right of appeal to the courts. Why should there be a right of appeal in the question of railway rates? Or is it the Socialist Party's intention that undue preference or unfair discrimination should not be made the subject of appeal in the realm of commerce? Is it their wish that there should be laid on the Corporation a

moral duty, incapable of enforcement, in which the Corporation is its own judge, and subject only to feeble protests from the Consumers' Council?
It may be ignorance on my part, as I was not here when this matter was discussed tonight, but I ask who are these mysterious consumers' representatives who keep on nodding agreement with the Government when they said there would never be discrimination, then agreed to a Clause on discrimination, and later nodded agreement when it was said it would be wrong to go to the courts? Perhaps their identity has appeared, and hon. Gentlemen know all about them, but it seems mysterious to me. What value can we attach to their nodding acquiesence when they followed the gyrations of the right hon. Gentleman from discrimination to non-discrimination, and back again?
The point is a serious one, whether an act which is wrong in itself—not an evil prohibited by statute—for a Corporation in an overwhelming economic position to say they will give steel to so-and-so at such a price, but they do not like someone else and will not give him steel at the same price. It is wrong to say, "I will not sell another man any steel," or "I will put my rates so high that that man will not be able to buy any steel." Apparently the right hon. Gentleman was persuaded, with the acquiescence of the consumer representatives, that undue preference or unfair discrimination, should not be exercised by the Corporation, and put in a pious moral formula. What is the good of leaving it at such a formula? Surely the Corporation would welcome a Clause which forbids them to do it, and makes any such action appealable to the courts. But you have to have teeth in this, sanctions.
Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not think a right of appeal to the courts is something people will abuse. He must surely appreciate that the ordinary common law has laid down that if somebody does not carry out a statutory duty there is a right of appeal to the courts. It was laid down at the beginning of the eighteenth century, in the case of Ashby and White, where a registration officer refused to allow somebody to vote. If it had been the present Government they would have said, "He is likely to lose his case, and to prevent him doing that


we must put in a Clause saying everybody shall be allowed to vote but we do not want any appeals to the law courts or the judges, who are not capable of understanding what words like 'ordinary commercial considerations' mean." That is a lunatic position, because it means that the pious hopes in this Bill will remain and the Corporation will be subject to no control when it does wrong.
The private trader who abuses his monopoly position is liable to be proceeded against if he breaks his contract in relation to the supply of goods. The Corporation will not have the competitive element against it, and therefore it is all the more necessary that it should be restrained from monopolistic practices—things which the Socialist Government have pretended to set their faces against. The worst form of monopolistic practice is to discriminate or show undue preference. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his opposition to this Amendment.

4.30 a.m.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Is it not possible to get to a decision on this Amendment now and come to the next Amendment, which is really the substance of what we are now discussing?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think the progress of this discussion would be assisted if some occupant of the Government Front Bench would condescend to reply to the serious, weighty and important arguments which have been directed from this side of the House and which, so far, have been received in sullen and discourteous silence from the Treasury Bench. A greater willingness to appreciate the arguments, about which my hon. Friends feel strongly and which we are prepared to press on the right hon. Gentleman even at the time of night at which this Government prefer to legislate, would facilitate the progress of their Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman himself put forward a most extraordinary proposition in the only contribution which we have had from that Bench. He went out of the way to say that the non-discrimination clause was intended to be a declaration of intention. He then went on to say he proposed to take out of the Bill any possibility of its being enforced. That is a novel attitude towards legislation. To say that the King, Lords and Commons shall

enact something as part of the law of the Realm and then that you are deliberately and specifically to prevent it being enforced and merely leave it as a Ministerial pledge of a kind such as has been broken on that Bench every week during the last four years—that way of treating serious legislation is making a farce of the legislative process.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to face squarely this question: Does he or does he not intend the non-discrimination clause to be a reality? If it is to be a reality, he must give those people personally affected by it, the right to go to the courts. To give on the one hand the provision of non-discrimination and then deliberately to take away with the other hand the possibility of enforcing it, is to make rather more nonsense of this Bill than so far has been done. Neither the right hon. Gentleman nor anybody from that Bench, has addressed himself, to that question. Apparently the right hon. Gentleman has not appreciated that discrimination of this kind may be immensely serious to the people affected. If for political or personal reasons, this great monopoly sets its face against certain consumers of steel, they can be completely and absolutely ruined. Yet the right hon. Gentleman proposes to deny these people even an opportunity of putting their cases before the courts of law.
It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that they can go to the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, as all hon. Members know, that any person so affected, who goes to the Minister, will be pushed aside with the statement that this is a matter of day to day administration in which the Minister does not interfere. The right hon. Gentleman knows it would be impossible for any hon. Member to get a question past the Table, or to get anything from the right hon. Gentleman except a courteous letter referring him to the Corporation. He knows all that perfectly well. And, as if that were not sufficient, the shutting out of the rights of individuals, he is seeking here to shut out the one remaining right of access to the courts. The right hon. Gentleman must face the fact that it would be more honest and frank of him to say, "I shall allow the Corporation to discriminate as it thinks fit, and to use the immense economic power which I propose to give to it to smash its rivals." [Interruption.]


I agree. I am sure the hon. Member for West Fife would do that. It would be more honest of the Minister to do that. But to do, as the right hon. Gentleman has done, namely, to seek to put into this Bill the appearance of non-discrimination, indeed, to put an express provision against it, and then to make it un-enforceable, simply reeks of hypocrisy.

Colonel Ropner: I propose to detain the House for only a very few minutes, but I want to impress upon the Minister that he has not succeeded in the smallest degree in alleviating the fears which we, on this side of the House, feel in regard to this matter. There is only one question which I want to raise, and I hope that we shall get an answer from the Government Front Bench on this matter, and in reply to the numerous points raised by my hon. Friends. The Minister indicated, as I understood him, that if those who thought they had a grievance were denied access to the courts, redress might be sought either from the Board, or through an appeal to the Minister, or through Parliament.
I am not convinced that there is going to be any redress gained from the board itself. I do not think that the Minister would put that forward as a serious suggestion. I do not think that there are many hon. Members of this House who would think that an appeal to the Minister alone will be altogether satisfactory. With regard to an appeal to Parliament, and this is the point I want to make, in all previous legislation of this sort, every effort has been made by the Government to deny to hon. Members the right to ask questions about these monopolies. How, therefore, since hon. Members of this House presumably will be denied the right to ask questions about this Corporation, as we are denied the right to ask questions about other corporations, can Parliament set about endeavouring to put right any question which may arise on the administration of this industry? I hope the Minister will explain to the House how redress can be obtained from Parliament, when questions cannot be asked about the day-to-day administration, or even about the more important administration, of the Corporation.

Mr. Henry Strauss: There is one matter, and one matter only, on which I

would express some sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman. I am astonished that in this most important discussion, and I believe that hon. Members in all parts of the House will realise how important it is, the right hon. Gentleman has not had the assistance of a Law Officer of the Crown. The views which the right hon. Gentleman expressed on the law were, I admit, shocking to a lawyer; but that is not necessarily a matter for which the right hon. Gentleman deserves any blame. On a matter which so obviously concerned the law deeply there should, I think, have been a Law Officer of the Crown present to reply to the Debate. The Debate has proceeded sufficiently long, I think, for a Law Officer to be found to reply to us in due course.
I agree entirely with the statement of my hon. Friend, the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), that if we leave the Clause as it will be under the Minister's proposals, paragraph (b) against discrimination will not be worth the paper it is written on. It will have absolutely no value of any kind whatsoever. The Minister seemed to think that there was something shocking in people having the right of recourse to the courts. What a person is asked to do is, "Go to the consumers' council" or, "Write a letter to the Minister."—[Interruption]—I am delighted to have the confirmation, through his applause, of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) which shows—not for the first time—that he fully approves this action of the Government, which is so fully in accord with the tyranny which he favours. Every time he agrees, he is of more assistance to us.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer; I am not. Will he not agree with me that it is easier for a man to be ruined in the courts than for him to be ruined through dealings with this Board?

Mr. Strauss: I do not, and if there is any man who takes that view, if the Lords Amendment is adopted, there is nothing to compel him to go to the courts. If the hon. Member for West Fife can persuade some person injured by unfair discrimination not to go to the courts, he can do so, although he will be doing a mischievous thing and I do not think he would succeed.
But if the Government do put in this Clause against these mal-practices, and the showing of undue preference and the exercise of unfair discrimination, it is really scandalous if they do not wish the prohibition to be a reality. The Minister has shown no reason whatever why anybody should make representations to a consumers' council, which cannot result in any Order of any sort, unless the Minister agrees, rather than go before his Majesty's judges. Hon. Members opposite take the view—which is constantly being disproved by history—that States and governments of themselves can be trusted to preserve freedom.

Mr. Gallacher: Hear, hear.

Mr. Strauss: It would be wrong for me to thank the hon. Member again for making articulate what is in the minds of those around him, but I would invite the attention of the House to some wise words recently written in a weekly journal which are worthy of quotation.
The history of freedom is one long list of devices—from trial by jury and Habeas Corpus to the judges' rules of evidence—based on the assumption that the State cannot be trusted to serve the public interest. No one would advocate dismantling these defences of justice simply because the executive organs of government are nowadays responsible to a democratically elected Parliament. Yet in economic matters the doctrine appears to be accepted that whatever a Minister of the Crown may take it into his head to do is ipso facto in the public interest. There really is no evidence for any such naively trusting view. Indeed, evidence is beginning to accumulate for the directly contrary view.
4.45 a.m.
I wish to cite as part of my argument that quotation from the "Economist" of 18th September, 1948. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If it helps hon. Members to jeer at those words because they find it impossible to answer them, they are welcome to do so. The points that I wished to put on the law have been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster). I think that those who have listened to the Debate will agree that a serious case has been put forward for making it abundantly clear on the face of the Statute that the prohibition against these evil practices shall be a reality, and that those who are injured by them shall not be denied a legal remedy and therefore every remedy.

Mr. Molson: The Minister suggested in the course of his speech that it would

be inconvenient and unnatural for any aggrieved person complaining of discrimination to have recourse to the courts. The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that under the Railway Act, 1852, it was provided that there should be no unfair discrimination against any user of the railways. At that time a monopoly was being set up, and it was considered necessary to ensure that every user of the railways should be treated in the same way. There is a long line of cases dealing with that, and it has proved to be an extremely satisfactory system in ensuring that all got equitable treatment from a monopoly.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: It is to my mind futile and rather dishonest to put into the Bill what purports to be a right and then to provide specifically that in no circumstances whatever can anyone have recourse to the courts to enforce that right. It seems rather typical of what is happening in so many countries on the Continent—liberal phraseology and totalitarian in action. It is precisely the sort of method the socialist parties always use, and that is why the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is so pleased about what is going on.

Mr. Gallacher: I do not think the hon. Member heard the few remarks I recently made, but whatever attitude was taken up I should be opposed to another place getting any consideration in regard to any Amendments.

Mr. Thorneycroft: It may well be that the Minister takes the same view. Certainly that would be a more logical argument for him to adduce than the one he gave to the House. The trouble in which the right hon. Gentleman finds himself is that over the whole course of these proceedings it does not appear that the Government have ever made up their minds whether they think discrimination is or is not a good thing, and whether people should or should not go to the courts. One would have thought that at an early stage in the proceedings they would have made up their minds about that.
The first thing which the right hon. Gentleman said, when this matter was first considered by the Government, was that they thought there should be no fear of discrimination. They said that


this is a great public Corporation working for use and not for profit, with the public interest at heart, which will never discriminate. That was a singularly inane view to take of any corporation set up with powers of that kind. All history shows that public corporations are just as much in need of check as any other large, powerful body. If that was the original view, it was not the view of the Parliamentary Secretary. He thought that non-discrimination was the one thing we ought to do away with. His great case was that we ought to discriminate, that it was the way to get exports, but the fact it was running counter to the international obligations of the Government did not bother him a bit. Not a single Member of the Government Front Bench got up to answer the point.
Then the right hon. Gentleman said that they had changed their minds and it might be a good thing to have a bit of discrimination. At that stage, they came to the conclusion they must remove the right of the individual to go to the courts. Then there was a confused bit, and naturally I do not wish to detain the House longer than I need, but I make no apology for it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] If hon. Members say, "Go on," I will certainly do so. This is, after all, something to which hon. Members opposite may be indifferent. They do not mind what they are doing to an industry on which the whole of Britain's economy may depend at this time. When Britain is in the middle of a great industrial crisis, they do not care. As I have said, there was then a confused period in which the Lord Chancellor appeared to have changed his mind. It is not the first time the Lord Chancellor has changed his mind. I think the whole House has some sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman in this, if in no other matter, that to try to follow the intricacies of the vacillating opinions expressed on this matter in another place, would put him in a considerable difficulty. He came to the end of the story by saying that if no Amendment was put down, the matter would be left in doubt. Their Lordships put down an Amendment, and carried it, that a specific right should be given for the individual to go to the courts.
The remedy, which I understand the Minister is going to propose, is that in no circumstances should they seek to enforce their rights there at all. I hope the House realises how this Clause stands if no remedy in the courts is given. I will say this in favour of the Parliamentary Secretary. When he came to the House this evening, he obviously did not know what the Clause meant and had not read it. It is so difficult and complicated a matter, no doubt, and he has many things upon his mind, or he should have. He thought there was no reference to prices in this matter at all. He has certainly never realised for a moment that this Clause, as it at present stands, entitles the Corporation to differentiate in price between one domestic consumer and another.

Mr. J. Jones: Mr. J. Jones indicated dissent.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head. If he has a different interpretation of the Clause, I will give way.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Member said that I did not know that the Clause contained a reference to prices. I was speaking to the three or four words at the end of the Clause. Of course, I knew there was reference to price, but I was not referring to price particularly.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate that, from the point of view of the law, it does not matter whether the reference to the price appears, whether it appears in the middle of the Clause or at the end. What matters is what is said about price. Interpreting the Clause as it now stands, the Corporation has an absolute right to discriminate between one domestic consumer and another, and if the Parliamentary Secretary wishes to quarrel with that I will be prepared to give way. I do not think he does quarrel with it. That is an extraordinary weapon to put into the hands of the Corporation who are to exercise it in the public interest. Who is to judge the public interest?—the Corporation themselves. My own view is that no Minister, no Government, no Executive, are the right people to judge the public interest unless they are subject to careful watch by the courts; but for the Iron and Steel Corporation to judge the public interest is an extraordinary proposition. No doubt, they are admir-


able men and chosen for their experience in the steel industry and the organisation of the workers. Why should they decide what the prices are to be?
No hon. Member has suggested any policy which should be pursued, nor any reason why any discrimination should be exercised. As my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) said in a useful contribution just now, Parliament has had experience in these matters before. We have had experience of the big monopolies in the course of years, and a fairly satisfactory system has been produced. Laws have been passed prohibiting undue preference and unfair discrimination. Tribunals have been set up, and persons discriminated against did not hesitate to appeal and get justice. Discrimination was knocked on the head quickly. The right hon. Gentleman has not suggested why the experience of half a century should be scrapped and something entirely new put forward. Mention has been made of consumers' councils. We have just had a consumer's council in the gas industry and what has happened to them? We are told they have gone on holiday. I hope it keeps fine for them. What substitute is that for the tribunals or courts of that character? I have never heard of a more futile attempt to ride roughshod over the public.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: One or two points have been raised in this discussion which merit an answer. The suggestion seems to have been made by some hon. Members opposite that we are depriving the steel consumers of a valuable right they possess. It is nothing of the sort. No steel consumer is able to go to court on the ground, as many people have thought, that a certain steel producer has given an undue preference to particular commercial friends. He has no right to go to the courts and allege that a particular steel producer is giving somebody else preference and demand damages as a result. There is no right possessed by the steel consumer to go to the courts to get damages from a steel producer from whom he is not getting preference.
The only legitimate complaint there could be is that we are not giving steel consumers rights which they do not possess today to get damages from the Corporation on the ground that they are giving undue preference. On that issue, debate can fairly take place;

it is on that issue that the Government believe they are right in saying that it would not only be contrary to precedent but would raise immense difficulties for the courts and the industry if anybody could allege in the courts that a steel producer had given preference in delivery and price and that, therefore, he was entitled to damages.

5.0 a.m.

Mr. Molson: Why was it not difficult for the Railway and Canal Commission to administer exactly the same principle?

Mr. Strauss: The charges made by the railways are pretty wellknown. The same applies to the charges made for selling simple commodities such as electricity.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying that railway charges are wellknown? Would he elaborate that statement?

Mr. Strauss: There are a certain number of previously well-defined standard charges which are well-known and well-established, and it is perfectly simple for anyone to allege, as was alleged in the early days of the railways, but not since the railway companies were amalgamated into large concerns, that a particular railway company was giving a rate preference to somebody else; it was perfectly simple to allege and prove that, but it is not the same situation here in dealing with producers who make thousands of different types of products. Therefore, to go to the courts and suggest that in respect of some of these products, whether in regard to quality, time of delivery or price, someone has received a preference over another, is putting on the courts a burden to do something which is utterly different from the burdens which the courts have previously had to bear and which they are very seldom asked to undertake in regard to rate charges.

Mr. Renton: The right hon. Gentleman is making a false comparison. Does he not remember that something like 40 per cent. of the merchandise carried by rail is not carried in accordance with the standard charges but in accordance with exceptional charges, and it was because of that large amount of merchandise carried by exceptional charges that jurisdiction with regard to undue preference was so vital to secure fairness. Will not


this same position arise in this new nationalised industry?

Mr. Strauss: I do not think that the argument is valid. Railway rates are very often special rates, and such rates do not give a special preference to one consumer over another. I am suggesting—and I know something about this from my experience in the Ministry of Transport—that the problem of seeing and ensuring that the railway companies did not give preference in rates to one company over another is a comparatively simple one, even with the fairly complex system of railway rates. But the problem of trying to do the same sort of thing with the thousands of different products of different quality in the iron and steel industry where price is taken into account, as well as delivery, is entirely different, so different in fact as really to make the problem not comparable at all.
On the legal aspect I want to make this point quite clear. Several things have been said about the attitude of the Lord Chancellor. It has been suggested that he wanted the Amendment which the Lords have moved accepted. It was also suggested that he changed his mind during the proceedings there. Both suggestions are untrue. He did not change his mind and he did not want the Amendment moved by the Lords incorporated in the Bill. He suggested that it would be wholly inappropriate to the courts, to put upon them this burden of deciding whether any undue preference is shown by the Corporation which will make such a vast variety of products, taking into account any particular and special exception made on ordinary commercial considerations or in the public interest. He said that in his view it would be wholly wrong for the courts to have to adjudicate in cases of that sort and decide whether a man was entitled to damages. On practical grounds it would be impossible to administer in the courts. On legal grounds we have the authority of the Lord Chancellor for saying that in his view it would be a burden difficult for the courts to bear, and that it is a task which should not be placed upon them.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman pleading that in the view of the Lord Chancellor it would not be right to burden the courts with the task of

trying to make sense of this amazing Clause?

Mr. Strauss: Certainly—legal sense. We put in words of ordinary common application which are not legal phraseology at all, about the normal commercial considerations and the public interest. The Lord Chancellor, for that reason in particular and for other reasons, said it would be inappropriate for the courts to deal with it and say what damages ought to be assessed.
It was always the intention that this should be a concession to those consumers who were quite unjustifiably frightened by the general declaration of the intention as to the way the Corporation should perform its duty. Very similar declarations of intention have been made in respect of the availability of products of a quantity, quality, and at prices suitable to the consumer. There is no possibility of taking that matter to court, and of somebody getting damages from the Corporation because they believed that the quality was not right, or the price was too high. It is worded in such a way as to give the discretion to the Corporation.
When we state that as a result of this, there are not to be any cases in court nor demands for damages, we are following precedent. A similar sort of thing has been done in the Coal Act, for example. There is a non-discrimination Clause there, but it is deliberately worded in such a way that, so far as I am aware, no one could object to it, and it could not possibly give rise to claims in court for damages.
In the Transport Act the consumer can have a choice of services, and it was deliberately stated in that measure when that concession was made:
Nothing in this section shall be construed as imposing on the Commission, either directly or indirectly, any form of duty or liability enforceable by proceedings before any court or tribunal to which they would not otherwise be subject.
I suggest that that was a perfectly wise and proper thing to do—to give a general direction to the Corporation and say that it will not be enforceable in court: if it is not carried out the Minister responsible will be questioned in Parliament about it, and if he takes no action about it, will be able to be criticised and be asked questions about any undue


preference which is complained of to the consumers' council, because he is able to give directions to the Corporation and can be questioned about that.
I say, therefore, that there is ample remedy for people who feel themselves aggrieved in this matter to put their grievances forward. We are following sound precedent here in saying that there shall be no appeal to the courts for damages. I say on practical and legal grounds it would be wholly wrong that appeals and claims against the Corporation should be made through the courts.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: The House on this occasion, as on a previous occasion when dealing with coal, is labouring under the difficulty that the Lord Chancellor in another place appears very seldom to hold the same views as Ministers express in this House. On the Coal Industry Bill a short time ago, we had a statement by the Minister of Fuel and Power supported by the Solicitor-General, but when it got to another place the Lord Chancellor threw it over. When it came back to the Commons, the Minister of Fuel and Power proceeded to say that he would not agree with what the Lord Chancellor said.
The right. hon. Gentleman has just been referring to criticism made in another place by the Lord Chancellor. I should like to point out to him that those criticisms were criticisms of the Government's own Clause as it went up to the Lords. It was not a criticism of some general statement, but a criticism by the Lord Chancellor. What does the Clause mean? As a result of discussions that have been held during the last few hours we begin to realise what the real attitude of the Government on undue preference is. It is significant of the right hon. Gentleman's attitude and of the whole attitude of the Government that when he proceeded to quote from the Transport Act in justification of the attitude he has taken up he left out the last few words of the Clause. It did not suit his purpose to read them, but let me read the passage in question.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the action that was being taken and proposed by the Government now was in full accord with the precedent set in the Transport Act. Let me read the Section concerned:

Nothing in this section shall be construed as imposing on the Commission either directly or indirectly any form of duty or liability enforceable by proceedings before any court or tribunal—
The right hon. Gentleman stopped there, but the sentence actually ends:
to which they would not otherwise be subject.
It is quite clear that, in fact, the Transport Act goes a long way as a result of the insertion of those words towards supporting the case we are making.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman is implying that I left out a relevant part of that quotation which told against me. I must correct him on that. I omitted those few words because they were not relevant to the situation. All that they do is to leave in force existing rights which consumers have and which give preferential rights under the Railway Acts and so on. They do not give the consumer any additional powers, which is the matter in dispute. They do not give the consumer any rights by going to the courts in spite of the choice that was given by the Railway Acts.

5.15 a.m.

Mr. Hudson: Yes, but what the Transport Act said was that the customer was not to have any right beyond the right which he had already. We are again up against the difficulty of what the right hon. Gentleman says here and what the Lord Chancellor says in another place. The Lord Chancellor said:
I strongly take the view in this case that, on the general view of this Measure, an individual would have such right of action.
If the Lord Chancellor is right in saying that on the general view an individual would have a right of action, the right hon. Gentleman is not doing in this case what he said the Transport Act did, because shortly he will move an Amendment to deprive the individual specifically of any right he may have had.
What is the alternative? What redress has the ordinary individual? Under the Railway Acts he had a definite redress. The right hon. Gentleman said that this was not an analogous case to that of the railways because the total number of cases in which discrimination might conceivably be exercised was so much greater. If the right hon. Gentleman is right, that is an argument why, the danger being greater, the remedy should


be more specific, rather than the other way round. The right hon. Gentleman said that the danger is very wide and that the only way to overcome it is to remove the subject's right of redress. What is the supposed right of redress under the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion? He says that anyone who is aggrieved can go to the consumers' council, who will report to the Minister, and the Minister will come to the House and put the matter right. But what proof have we that the right hon. Gentleman will do that? What is the probability of the action which the right hon. Gentleman will take?
Here is a Corporation set up by a Socialist Government to carry out their policies. The Parliamentary Secretary on another Amendment earlier this evening justified the need for retaining the right of discrimination in the public interest. The Minister is the last person with the right to say whether it is in the public interest or not. What is to prevent him saying, "The Corporation feel this is in the public interest. I feel that this is in the public interest. I agree with them that this discrimination is justified?" When he comes to this House, even supposing that it were possible to put it to the vote, clearly he will recommend his followers, who are in a majority, to sustain his interpretation. In other words, the House may well be asked to confirm a discrimination against an individual firm, whether in this country or overseas.
We believe that that is a thoroughly unsound scheme. We believe that it is not what this country and the people have fought for over the centuries. They have fought over the centuries to establish the principle that the Government are not in the last resort the best interpreters of what is in the national interest. Over the centuries the people have fought for the principle that the Government are an interested party and that the subject ought to have the right to an appeal to independent courts. It is clear from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman and from the Amendment he is shortly to move that what he wants to do is to prevent the subject having any redress. He wants to be in a position to allow the Corporation to exercise discrimination either in individual cases or in whole classes of cases, and that we believe to be thoroughly wrong.

Mr. Granville: I rubbed my eyes when I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's reply, not because it is 5.20 a.m. but because I thought I was listening to the most eloquent and powerful argument against the nationalisation of steel which I have heard in this Debate. He was explaining the complications and difficulties of the hundred and one small operations and various provisions in the iron and steel industry. This is now all being taken over by the greatest monopoly of all, the State. I am amazed—and I hope the country will take note of it—at the silence on the benches opposite when the last effective right of appeal of the individual in this industry is being lost in the House of Commons tonight. The right hon. Gentleman said that we had not got it at present, but he knows the enormous powers vested in the Ministry of Supply during the war, and he also knows that at present an individual or consumer can change his source of supply tomorrow if he is dissatisfied. But here we are creating a State monopoly, and all the arguments adduced by him were not supported by any of the Law Officers of the Crown; nor has a single Member on his side dared to raise his voice for the rights of the little man. They have sat there like oxen, absolutely dumb while this last effective right, this vital piece of freedom, is being taken away.
In every crevice of production and distribution in this country the little man and his rights are being frittered away by those on the benches opposite. Listening to the right hon. Gentleman and reading the Clause dealing with the Consumers' Council, the party opposite are going to give the little man the same kind of deal as was given to the dispossessed farmer during the war. I hope that we shall go into the Lobby, and I hope that the country will note the silence from the benches opposite as this injustice is being imposed on the individual.

Colonel Hutchison: The speech which was made a few moments ago by the right hon. Gentleman was based on two profound fallacies. The first one was that he said that at the present time the power did not lie with an aggrieved complainant to go to the courts. But, as the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) said, he can go elsewhere, and there is not


the necessity, as there will be after this enormous monopolistic organisation has been set up, to protect him in the same way. One by one, under this Government, our liberties are being taken away from us, and sometimes they are not taken away so obviously as they are under this Clause. Here is the forerunner of the taking away of a most precious liberty—the right of an aggrieved person in this country having recourse to the courts in order to get compensation.
Let me read the words of the Amendment just to show how reasonable they are:
If any such undue preference or unfair discrimination as aforesaid is shown or exercised or reasonably apprehended, any person affected shall have a right of action for damages, or for an injunction or other relief as may be just.
No Amendment could more reasonably have been framed, and no Amendment should more quickly have been accepted by the Government. It is fantastic that an Amendment of this kind should have been thrown aside, and for the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman. He is afraid that the courts would be overburdened with trivialities. Are we then going to abandon justice because justice becomes difficult to dispense? Is that the reasoning? Is it the case that trivialities will be brought forward so easily? Going to the courts costs money, and is not embarked on light-heartedly. Instead of finding a method of providing justice for aggrieved persons the Minister chooses to put the Corporation above the law. He sets up a gigantic, powerful, juggernaut, and encourages it to discriminate, because the power to discriminate is as much an encouragement to discriminate as the power to go to law would be an encouragement to go to law. I add my voice to those from this side which have urged that this should be accepted. The Government have fallen very low, but this should be an all-time record.

Colonel Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman said that there is no right of private traders to appeal to the law against other private traders, and asked why, therefore, should they be allowed to do it when a board is established for this industry. The answer seems to me plain. In the case of an overwhelming monopoly which would be established by a Corporation of this sort it is essential that there should be some

protection. I read in "Labour Believes in Britain" that the party opposite believe that private and public enterprise should compete fairly, to the advantage of both. It would not be competing fairly unless there was some court of appeal. With an overwhelming monopoly of this sort there would be an over-overwhelming temptation for the board to take advantage of their position. It it like a race where one of the horses is owned by the starter, judge, steward, clerk of the course, and so on. He might be able to keep straight, but if he does he is a superman.
I believe the same temptation will be before the Corporation, and more particularly if the Corporation are losing money. They may not be competing like private industry for profits and dividends, but they have to produce balance sheets, and those balance sheets will be criticised; and salaries and appointments will depend on them, and there will be a great temptation to exploit the powers they have to the detriment of the private trader.

5.30 a.m.

Mr. H. Fraser: We all listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with little less than amazement. The arguments he put forward are astounding. He put forward the absurd argument that no individual firm has any redress against the large steelmakers. The answer is that any firm trading with these large steel firms can change its source of supply, and only owing to the war and various other things is it more difficult to change. The Minister went on to talk about the number of individual items which would have to be considered. The Minister will, no doubt, be pleased to hear that that is all covered by the Amendment which proposes to appoint an Iron and Steel Prices Board. This is merely a question of trading like to like, and of justice between two people whether they are buying anvils or the smallest nuts, bolts or screws.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to talk in a way which he knows to be untrue about there being no redress at the moment. Surely the real argument—and I could see the Minister at heart was trying to avoid it—is that the State is now setting up a monopoly and must take the consequences, which are that


there must be redress available to the individual consumer. That is precisely what the Government are refusing to do and why we believe this Clause should be amended.
We have a very learned Law Officer from Scotland on the Front Bench; I am sure we all feel that after the Sybelline utterances made in another place, by the well-known lawyer and rather able if chancy politician, the Lord Chancellor, in which he on one occasion decided our Amendment was legal rubbish and, on another occasion decided the Government's Clause was legal rubbish, we ought to be further refreshed by the learning and wit of the hon. and learned Gentleman from across the Border. I hope the Government will instruct the Lord Advocate to clear up this matter. We have come to a pretty pass when the Lord Chancellor is unable to interpret laws sent up to him by this House. There is no Law Officer here except this silent and apparently gagged learned Gentleman from Scotland.

Mr. Gallacher: Let me inform the hon. Gentleman that the hon. and learned Gentleman is my Parliamentary representative, and I forbid him to answer that question.

Mr. Fraser: The fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman remains silent and allows himself to be convicted of being a "fellow traveller" is surely a fact which must be taken into account. If the Lord Advocate is receiving his orders indirectly from Moscow, we have come to a pretty pass. I see the Whips hovering like angels of doom, and I am tempted to go on at undue length. When the Minister faces this monopoly problem he should face it as the pioneer monopolists faced it when the railways were set up in 1852. Why we should have such reactions from the right hon. Gentleman today amazes me.
I should just like to turn to the Minister's concession, first with regard to the consumers' councils which, as one knows from experience, are either asleep, or not working. He added this general sort of declaration of indulgence to be made to all consumers of steel, or of Third Schedule steel, or whatever products are made by the publicly-owned companies—namely, the "declaration of

our good intentions." The ways of this Government have been paved with good intentions. It is not enough for the country, and it is not enough for the manufacturers, to know that the Government have these good intentions. Unless they are enforceable by law, they are worthless scraps of paper.

Mr. P. Roberts: The Minister, as I see it, is setting himself up in the place of His Majesty's Judges. I would therefore like to ask him, if a case is brought before him, whether he proposes to award damages? If he does award damages, who is to pay those damages? Is the Corporation to pay them, or will he make a private director, or a member of the Corporation, pay them? It seems to me that that is a point which should be cleared up. The procedure in the courts is perfectly well known; it has been built up over many years. The Minister is now, apparently, going to bring in some new procedure, yet he has given no indication of how he proposes to do it. Without that indication, I suggest to the House that it should not accept the Minister's arguments.
What happens if the Minister refuses to do what is right? It has been done before. I recall a case, some years ago, when the Admiralty refused to do what was right in regard to a small boy, whose name, I believe, was Archer-Shee and who was discharged from a school. A great fuss was made in this House about it, but the Admiralty refused to do what was right. However, the matter was taken to the court, and a Minister of the Crown of that time was proved to be wrong. What happens if a Minister of the Crown is wrong again? Under the proposed procedure, there will be no appeal to the courts. Injustice may be done, but there will be no appeal to the courts. To see the rights of people taken away in this manner can please, so far as I can see, only one section of this House, and that is the Communist section, which no doubt glories in seeing the fetters being put upon free people.

Mr. Whiteley: Mr. Whiteley rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"

The House divided: Ayes, 265; Noes, 140.

Division No. 231.]
AYES
[5.38 a.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Grey, C. F.
Nally, W.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Grierson, E.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Attewell, H. C.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Noel-Baker, Capt F. E. (Brentford)


Austin, H. Lewis
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
O'Brien, T.


Awbery, S. S.
Gunter, R. J.
Oliver, G. H.


Bacon, Miss A.
Guy, W. H.
Orbach, M.


Baird, J.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Balfour, A.
Hale, Leslie
Palmer, A. M. F.


Barstow, P. G.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Pargiter, G. A.


Barton, C.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Parkin, B. T.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Pearson, A.


Berry, H.
Hardman, D. R.
Peart, T. F.


Beswick, F.
Hardy, E. A.
Perrins, W.


Bing, G. H. C.
Harrison, J.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Binns, J.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Blenkinsop, A.
Haworth, J.
Price, M. Philips


Blyton, W. R.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Pritt, D. N.


Bottomley, A. G.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Proctor, W. T.


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Herbison, Miss M.
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Hewitson, Capt M.
Randall, H. E.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hobson, C. R.
Ranger, J.


Bramall, E. A.
Holman, P.
Rankin, J.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Brown, George (Belper)
Horabin, T. L.
Reeves, J.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Houghton, Douglas
Rhodes, H.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hoy, J.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Burden, T. W.
Hubbard, T.
Robens, A.


Burke, W. A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Callaghan, James
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'ton, W.)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Carmichael, James
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Champion, A. J.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Sargood, R.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Johnston, Douglas
Scollan, T.


Cocks, F. S.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Coldrick, W.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Sharp, Granville


Collick, P.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)



Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Shurmer, P.


Collindridge, F.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Collins, V. J.
Keenan, W.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Cook, T. F.
Kenyon, C.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
King, E. M.
Simmons, C. J.


Cove, W. G.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Skeffington, A. M.


Cullen, Mrs.
Kinley, J.
Skinnard, F. W.


Daines, P.
Lang, G.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lavers, S.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Snow, J. W.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Levy, B. W.
Sparks, J. A.


Davies, Haydn (St Pancras, S. W.)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Steele, T.


Deer, G.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lindgren, G. S.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)


Delargy, H. J.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Stross, Dr. B.


Diamond, J.
Logan, D. G.
Stubbs, A. E.


Dobbie, W.
Longden, F.
Swingler, S.


Dodds, N. N.
Lyne, A. W.
Sylvester, G. O.


Driberg, T. E. N.
McAdam, W.
Symonds, A. L.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
McAllister, G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dumpleton, C. W.
McEntee, V. La. T.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Dye, S.
Mack, J. D.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
McKinlay, A. S.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
McLeavy, F.
Timmons, J.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Tolley, L.


Ewart, R.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Ungoed-Thomas L.


Farthing, W. J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Usborne, Henry


Fernyhough, E.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Field, Capt. W. J.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Walker, G. H.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Foot, M. M.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Forman, J. C.
Mellish, R. J.
Warbey, W. N.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Messer, F.
Watkins, T. E.


Freeman, J. (Watford)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Gallacher, W.
Mikardo, Ian.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Gibbins, J.
Monslow, W.
West, D. G.


Gibson, C. W.
Morley, R.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Gilzean, A.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mort, D. L.
Wigg, George


Grenfell, D. R.
Moyle, A.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C A B







Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Willis, E.
Yates, V. F.


Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Wise, Major F. J.



Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Woods, G. S.
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Wilkins.


Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Wyatt, W.





NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Odey, G. W.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Harvey, Air-Comdre A. V.
Osborne, C.


Astor, Hon. M.
Haughton, S. G.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Baldwin, A. E.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Pickthorn, K.


Barlow, Sir J.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pitman, I. J.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hollis, M. C.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Bennett, Sir P.
Hope, Lord J.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Birch, Nigel
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Boothby, R.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Raikes, H. V.


Bower, N.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Renton, D.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Keeling, E. H.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Butcher, H. W.
Langford-Holt, J.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Carson, E.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Challen, C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Channon, H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ropner, Col. L.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Linstead, H. N.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smithers, Sir W.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Low, A. R. W.
Spence, H. R.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Studholme, H. G.


De la Bère, R.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Sutcliffe, H.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McCallum, Maj. D.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
McFarlane, C. S.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Donner, P. W.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Teeling, William


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Drayson, G. B.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Drewe, C.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Erroll, F. J.
Marples, A. E.
Touche, G. C.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Turton, R. H.


Fox, Sir G.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Maude, J. C.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Mellor, Sir J.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Molson, A. H. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Granville, E. (Eye)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
York, C.


Gridley, Sir A.
Nicholson, G.



Grimston, R. V.
Nield, B. (Chester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harden, J. R. E.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Brigadier Mackeson and


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Nutting, Anthony
Colonel Wheatley.

Question put accordingly, "That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 266; Noes, 140.

Division No. 232.]
AYES
[5.47 a.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Binns, J.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Blenkinsop, A.
Chamberlain, R. A.


Albu, A. H.
Blyton, W. R.
Champion, A. J.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Boardman, H.
Chetwynd, G. R.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Bottomley, A. G.
Cocks, F. S.


Attewell, H. C.
Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Coldrick, W.


Austin, H. Lewis
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pt. Exch'ge)
Collick, P.


Awbery, S. S.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Collindridge, F.


Bacon, Miss A.
Bramall, E. A.
Collins, V. J.


Baird, J.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Cook, T. F.


Balfour, A.
Brown, George (Belper)
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)


Barstow, P. G.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Crossman, R. H. S.


Barton, C.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Cullen, Mrs.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Burden, T. W.
Daines, P.


Berry, H.
Burke, W. A.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Beswick, F.
Callaghan, James
Davies, Edward (Burslem)


Bing, G. H. C.
Carmichael, James
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)




Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Robens, A.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Keenan, W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Deer, G.
Kenyon, C.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
King, E. M.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Delargy, H. J.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Diamond, J.
Kinley, J.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Dobbie, W.
Lang, G.
Sargood, R.


Dodds, N. N.
Lavers, S.
Scollan, T.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Sharp, Granville


Dumpleton, C. W.
Levy, B. W.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Dye, S.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Shurmer, P.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lindgren, G. S.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Logan, D. G.
Simmons, C. J.


Ewart, R.
Longden, F.
Skeffington, A. M.


Farthing, W. J.
Lyne, A. W.
Skinnard, F. W.


Fernyhough, E.
McAdam, W.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Field, Capt. W. J.
McAllister, G.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McEntee, V. La. T.
Snow, J. W.


Foot, M. M.
Mack, J. D.
Sorensen, R. W.


Forman, J. C.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Sparks, J. A.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McKinlay, A. S.
Steele, T.


Freeman, J. (Watford)
McLeavy, F.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Gallacher, W.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Stross, Dr. B.


Gibbins, J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stubbs, A. E.


Gibson, C. W.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Swingler, S.


Gilzean, A.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Symonds, A. L.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Grenfell, D. R.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Grey, C. F.
Mellish, R. J.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Grierson, E.
Messer, F.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Mikardo, Ian.
Timmons, J.


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mitchison, G. R.
Tolley, L.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Monslow, W.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Gunter, R. J.
Morley, R.
Usborne, Henry


Guy, W. H.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Walker, G. H.


Hale, Leslie
Mort, D. L.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Moyle, A.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Nally, W.
Warbey, W. N.


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Watkins, T. E.


Hardman, D. R.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Hardy, E. A.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Harrison, J.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
West, W. T. (Walsall)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
O'Brien, T.
West, D. G.


Haworth, J.
Oliver, G. H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Orbach, M.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Herbison, Miss M.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wigg, George


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pargiter, G. A.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Hobson, C. R.
Parkin, B. T.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Holman, P.
Pearson, A.
Willy, O. G. (Cleveland)


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Peart, T. F.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Horabin, T. L.
Perrins, W.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Houghton, Douglas
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Hubbard, T.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Price, M. Philips
Willis, E.


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'ton, W.)
Pritt, D. N.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Proctor, W. T.
Wise, Major F. J.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Randall, H. E.
Woods, G. S.




Wyatt, W.


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Ranger, J.
Yates, V. F.


Johnston, Douglas
Rankin, J.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Rees-Williams, D. R.



Jones, D. T. (Hertlepool)
Reeves, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Rhodes, H.
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Wilkins.


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.





NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Bower, N.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.


Astor, Hon. M.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Cooper-Key, E. M.


Baldwin, A. E.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)


Barlow, Sir J.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Crowder, Capt. John E.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Butcher, H. W.
Cuthbert, W. N.


Bennett, Sir P.
Challen, C.
Darling, Sir W. Y.


Birch, Nigel
Channon, H.
De la Bère, R.


Boothby, R.
Clarke, Col. R. S.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.







Donner, P. W.
Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Lloyd Selwyn (Wirral)
Renton, D.


Drayson, G. B.
Low, A. R. W.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Drewe, C.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Erroll, F. J.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Ropner, Col. L.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
McCallum, Maj. D.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Fox, Sir G.
McFarlane, C. S.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Smithers, Sir W.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Spence, H. R.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Studholme, H. G.


Granville, E. (Eye)
Marples, A. E.
Sutcliffe, H.


Gridley, Sir A.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Grimston, R. V.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Harden, J. R. E.
Maude, J. C.
Teeling, William


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Mellor, Sir J.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Molson, A. H. E.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Haughton, S. G.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Head, Brig. A. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Touche, G. C.


Hollis, M. C.
Nicholson, G.
Turton, R. H.


Hope, Lord J.
Nield, B. (Chester)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Nutting, Anthony
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Odey, G. W.
Webbs, Sir H. (Abbey)


Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Osborne, C.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Keeling, E. H.
Pickthorn, K.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Langford-Holt, J.
Pitman, I. J.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
York, C.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.



Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Raikes, H. V.
Brigadier Mackeson and


Linstead, H. N.
Ramsay, Maj. S.
Mr. Wingfield Digby.

Mr. Lyttelton: On a point of Order. May I ask what the Government's intentions are about the Debate? If necessary, I shall formally move the Adjournment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The right hon. Gentleman cannot move the Adjournment. He can move that further consideration of the Lords Amendments be adjourned.

Mr Lyttelton: I beg to move, "That further consideration of the Lords Amendments be now adjourned."
It is clear that we cannot expect to finish the work in front of the House in anything like reasonable time. Judging by the answers we are now getting the Minister is a one-man Government band: nobody else is allowed to play. He sustains the whole play by not answering. He must be so tired that he hardly knows what he is talking about.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): This is by no means the first time I have addressed the House at this hour, both from this Box and from the opposite side. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to ask what are the Government's intentions.

We propose to sit until about noon today, and to continue discussions on the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary has also placed this Business on the Order Paper for Tuesday—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which Tuesday?"]—I am coming to that in a moment. It will follow Business already announced for that day. The Government intend to get these Amendments considered in time for adequate consideration of our disagreements by the members of another place. We also intend to get, before the Recess, the remainder of the Business the Government have announced they propose to take. If necessary we shall sit on Monday and Tuesday of next week.

6.0 a.m.

Major Tufton Beamish: The Home Secretary missed one of the most important points raised by my right hon. Friend, which was that there is only one right hon. Gentleman opposite who is capable of speaking at all in this Debate and I do think that we are entitled to be told whether there is not one hon. Member out of 400 capable of giving a coherent answer to the arguments put forward from this side. I hope the Home Secretary will give us some


satisfaction on that, because the Debate has been turned into a complete farce.

Mr. Renton: May I remind the Government that there has been a great deal of rather difficult law to discuss on almost every Amendment which we have considered? There have been repeated suggestions by the Opposition that one of the Law Officers of the Crown should be present. Although the Attorney-General has taken part in the Divisions—and we are glad to see him here—he has made not the slightest attempt to lead and guide the House on these difficult legal problems. If the Debate is to proceed the Minister, who obviously is having a very great strain imposed upon him, should have the benefit of the assistance of one of the Law Officers.

Lord John Hope: What exactly will happen if the right hon. Gentleman should collapse?

Hon. Members: He is already collapsing.

Mr. C. Williams: I should like to put a further point to the Home Secretary. It must have struck him quite forcibly during the last few hours that this is a fairly complicated Bill and that during all this time the Minister in charge has been grossly overworked. We do agree that he has a very hard job. It is against all trade union rules that we should work the Minister as hard as the Home Secretary and the Patronage Secretary are working him at present. I would, therefore, ask the Home Secretary whether he could not have a little mercy on these occasions and allow the Minister to have some form of relief—say, a Law Officer. Would this not be a suitable occasion on which we might have one of the Ministers who is hardly as overworked as the present Minister of Supply—say the Chan-

cellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then we are apparently shut down at once.

There is another suggestion I would like to make, and that is that we should have the services of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is dying to make a speech. We have had no support from the Scottish point of view, so far as the Government are concerned. I make these one or two objections to what the Home Secretary has said, because I believe that fundamentally he is a fairly kind-hearted person, and I think he ought to afford some relief to the Government Front Bench. If we go on in this way, and after the speeches from the Government Front Bench, no one quite knows when the Patronage Secretary will get up and say that the Government are quite mad.

Mr. Edgar Granville: In view of the fact that the acting Leader of the House has said that we may have to sit on Monday and Tuesday of next week, it is quite obvious that it will be our duty on this side of the House to move the Adjournment in view of the impending economic crisis. It is quite possible that in any event the House will be recalled during August, and that we might have to sit through the whole of August to deal with urgent emergency questions. The Minister of Supply has been carrying on a one-man band with the dumb oxen behind him; there is no Law Officer of the Crown on the Front Bench. Although the Attorney-General is in the House he has not given us the opportunity of hearing him explain some of these difficult legal interpretations. For all these reasons would it not be better to adjourn the House now, and let us sit through the whole of August?

Question put, "That further consideration of the Lords Amendments be adjourned."

The House divided: Ayes, 138; Noes, 261.

Division No. 233.]
AYES
[6.10 a.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Cuthbert, W. N.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
De la Bère, R.


Astor, Hon. M.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Baldwin, A. E.
Butcher, H. W.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Barlow, Sir J.
Challen, C.
Donner, P. W.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Channon, H.
Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)


Bennett, Sir P.
Clarke, Col. R. S.
Drayson, G. B.


Birch, Nigel
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Drewe, C.


Boothby, R.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.


Bower, N.
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Crowder, Capt. John E.
Erroll, F. J.




Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Renton, D.


Fox, Sir G.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
McCallum, Maj. D.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
McFarlane, C. S.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Ropner, Col. L.


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Granville, E. (Eye)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Smithers, Sir W.


Gridley, Sir A.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Grimston, R. V.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Spence, H. R.


Harden, J. R. E.
Marples, A. E.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Maude, J. C.
Studholme, H. G.


Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Sutcliffe, H.


Haughton, S. G.
Mellor, Sir J.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Head, Brig. A. H.
Molson, A. H. E.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Teeling, William


Hope, Lord J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Nicholson, G.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Nield, B. (Chester)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Nutting, Anthony
Touche, G. C.


Keeling, E. H.
Odey, G. W.
Turton, R. H.


Langford-Holt, J.
Osborne, C.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Pickthorn, K.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Pitman, I. J.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Linstead, H. N.
Prescott, Stanley
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
York, C.


Low, A. R. W.
Raikes, H. V.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lucas, Major Sir J.
Ramsay, Maj. S.
Major Conant and


Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Colonel Wheatley.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Cook, T. F.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)


Albu, A. H.
Cove, W. G.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Cullen, Mrs.
Gunter, R. J.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Daines, P.
Guy, W. H.


Attewell, H. C.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)


Austin, H. Lewis
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hale, Leslie


Awbery, S. S.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.


Bacon, Miss A.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Baird, J.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hardman, D. R.


Balfour, A.
Deer, G.
Hardy, E. A.


Barstow, P. G.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Harrison, J.


Barton, C.
Delargy, H. J.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Bechervaise, A. E.
Diamond, J.
Haworth, J.


Berry, H.
Dobbie, W.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)


Beswick, F.
Dodds, N. N.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Bing, G. H. C.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Herbison, Miss M.


Binns, J.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Hewitson, Capt M.


Blenkinsop, A.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Hobson, C. R.


Blyton, W. R.
Dye, S.
Holman, P.


Boardman, H.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Bottomley, A. G.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Horabin, T. L.


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Houghton, Douglas


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Hoy, J.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Ewart, R.
Hubbard, T.


Bramall, E. A.
Farthing, W. J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'ton, W.)


Brown, George (Belper)
Field, Capt. W. J.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Foot, M. M.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)


Burden, T. W.
Forman, J. C.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Burke, W. A.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Johnston, Douglas


Callaghan, James
Freeman, J. (Watford)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)


Carmichael, James
Gallacher, W.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)


Chamberlain, R. A.
Gibbins, J.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)


Champion, A. J.
Gibson, C. W.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Gilzean, A.
Keenan, W.


Cocks, F. S.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Kenyon, C.


Coldrick, W.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.


Collick, P.
Grenfell, D. R.
Kinley, J.


Collindridge, F.
Grey, C. F.
Lang, G.


Collins, V. J.
Grierson, E.
Lavers, S.







Lee, F. (Hulme)
Pargiter, G. A.
Stubbs, A. E.


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Parkin, B. T.
Swingler, S.


Levy, B. W.
Pearson, A.
Sylvester, G. O.


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Peart, T. F.
Symonds, A. L.


Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Perrins, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Lindgren, G. S.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Logan, D. G.
Price, M. Philips
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Longden, F.
Pritt, D. N.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Lyne, A. W.
Proctor, W. T.
Timmons, J.


McAdam, W.
Pursey, Comdr, H.
Tolley, L.


McAllister, G.
Randall, H. E.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


McEntee, V. La. T.
Ranger, J.
Usborne, Henry


Mack, J. D.
Rankin, J.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Walker, G. H.


McKinlay, A. S.
Reeves, J.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


McLeavy, F.
Rhodes, H.
Warbey, W. N.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Watkins, T. E.


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Robens, A.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
West, D. G.


Mann, Mrs. J.
Robinson, Kenneth (St Pancras, N.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb gh, E.)


Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Rogers, G. H. R.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Mellish, R. J.
Sargood, R.
Wigg, George


Messer, F.
Scollan, T.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Mikardo, Ian.
Sharp, Granville
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Mitchison, G. R.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Monslow, W.
Smurmer, P.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Morley, R.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Mort, D. L.
Simmons, C. J.
Willis, E.


Moyle, A.
Skeffington, A. M.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Nally, W.
Skinnard, F. W.
Wise, Major F. J.


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Snow, J. W.
Woods, G. S.


Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Sorensen, R. W.
Wyatt, W.


O'Brien, T.
Sparks, J. A.
Yates, V. F.


Oliver, G. H.
Steels, T.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Orbach, M.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)



Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Palmer, A. M. F.
Stross, Dr. B.
Mr. Popplewell and




Mr. George Wallace.

Amendment proposed, in lieu of the Lords Amendment last disagreed to, in page 5, line 13, after the words inserted by the second Lords Amendment in page 5, line 13, to insert:
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed as imposing on the Corporation, either directly or indirectly, any form of duty or liability enforceable by proceedings before any court."—[Mr. G. R. Strauss.]

6.15 a.m.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I ought to point out to hon. Gentlemen that I have been examining this Amendment with the Lords Amendment which was defeated. It seems to me that one is a complete contradiction or negation of the other, and the Debate therefore cannot range over the whole scope of the earlier Debate.

Mr. Renton: I am in a difficulty about this matter, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because, mistakenly thinking that both this Amendment and the previous one were being discussed together—a conclusion which I apparently wrongly drew from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman

on the other Amendment—I proceeded to deploy an argument which related only to this Amendment. Your predecessor in the Chair, rightly, it seemed to me, stopped me in the middle of my argument, and I naturally did not proceed with it in view of his Ruling. I have no wish to repeat what I said earlier, but a very important principle is at stake. This Amendment says, in effect, that there shall be no redress. When Parliament lays down against the individual citizen such a terrible proposition, surely the matter should be specifically discussed and the discussion on it should not be wrapped up in the discussion of another and possibly a less important Amendment.
In order that we may have an answer on the specific point, I would like briefly to refer the right hon. Gentleman to Articles 8 and 10 of the Charter of Human Rights, of which this Amendment appears to be a flagrant breach. The moving of the Amendment by the Government is in itself a flagrant breach of solemn undertakings entered into by


the Government in the international sphere. The Articles are very short and for the benefit of hon. Members who were not in the Chamber earlier, they are as follows:
Article 8 states:
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 10 states:
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations …
The right hon. Gentleman, if I understood his previous argument, came to the conclusion that it was unnecessary to insert the words which were put into the Transport Act because then the rights already existed, and on this occasion no rights already existed. It seems to me that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman entirely missed the point. It appears to be this: that in the railway system, as soon as it was seen that a monopoly was being set up, rights were created, and the right to seek redress when there had been undue preference or unfair discrimination was established. Exactly the same position has now arisen. A monopoly is being created which may abuse its rights at the expense of the individual citizen. It may create undue preference and give rise to unfair discrimination.
In order that the rights of the individual may be protected, and they are now being assaulted for the first time, with the exception of the powers taken during the war, surely it is right that there should be the same opportunities granted as under the railway legislation. Whether that is so or not, one thing which must be wrong is that the Government are attempting to carry an Amendment with the positive intention of preventing any right there may possibly be from ever being exerted.
I think hon. Gentlemen opposite, who take far more interest in international affairs than in the nationalisation Bills, should pay heed. I wonder if their consciences will not be severely shocked and shaken if they find themselves voting in favour of this Amendment, which is such a flagrant breach of international obligations.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I dealt with the question on the last Amendment I do not propose to address myself to the general merits of this quite outrageous Amendment, but wish to raise the point that I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman in seeking to carry out his outrageous intention has succeeded in doing that. I am not at all clear as to the effect of his Amendment. It excludes any liability, directly or indirectly, of the Corporation in respect of the non-discrimination Clause, but does it protect the servants or agents of the Corporation? Does the Amendment exclude the possibility of them being brought before a court as servants or agents of the Corporation?
It is possible that the word "indirectly" may be so construed, but at least it is doubtful, and I should be grateful if the hard-worked Minister, whether with or without the legal assistance which seems so often to fail him, could clear up that point. The Corporation are covered, but what about the subsidiary companies? If any one of the subsidiary companies indulges in breaches of the non-discrimination clause there is apparently no cover for them. Is it a fact that while the Corporation are covered the companies are exposed?
It seems that the right hon. Gentleman, in attempting to exclude the subject from the right of access to the courts, has succeeded in doing so in so clumsy and uncertain a manner as to give rise to much of that litigation which he appeared in an earlier speech so much to fear. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman at least to seek to satisfy the House that he has been able to do what he sought to do, and that if he wants to take away the rights of the citizen he has at least done it properly and tidily. I am certain the right hon. Gentleman would agree that it would be highly unsatisfactory to leave this matter in that uncertain state, which can only be tested by fighting actions up to the House of Lords. But it is very unfortunate if this House, being forced by the Government's mishandling of its time-table to deal with these points at 6.30 in the morning, should find itself under the further handicap of having to deal with them without the assistance of the Law Officers.
One of my hon. Friends has pointed out that the Attorney-General was in the precincts. Is there any reason why he


should not discharge his duties to the House? If he does not, it does not lie in the mouths of hon. Members opposite to complain that Government Business does not go as speedily as they would like. If the House is not given the authoritative advice it is entitled to it is quite likely that the House will continue to ask for it.

Mr. Maclay: The Minister has pointed out that the whole purpose of this Clause was to give certain general directions to the Corporation about how they should act, and he said that the Government cannot accept that there should be any right of appeal to the courts if the Corporation failed in their obligations. He repeated once or twice the phrase, "There should be no claims through the courts." Does that mean that an aggrieved citizen or company, with a blatant case of discrimination which they can prove and from which they have suffered severely, have no chance of compensation from anyone?
It seems to me that the Consumers' Council cannot meet a compensation claim. Can the Minister? Has he any Vote on which he can do it? Or are we going to find Parliament adjudicating on a claim and making a grant? I may be dense, but is the meaning of the Minister's statement that there is no possible redress at any time for private concerns damaged through the failure of the Corporation to obey the instructions given them under the Bill?

6.30 a.m.

Mr. H. Macmillan: This Amendment and the one we have just disposed of relate closely to each other. I had hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not have been content with formally moving it, because his request to the House to put this proviso into the Bill is important. I was naturally much relieved by the information the Home Secretary gave us as to the course of the proceedings, because I was afraid possibly there would not be sufficient time to give that full consideration to the immense amount of business on these Amendments that we still have to give. But he has relieved our minds very much by the announcement he has made. He has pledged the Government that proceedings will not be protracted beyond noon, so that the country may have a full account of their admirable handling of the dock trouble. We have nothing to fear in regard to that.

He has assured us that we shall have plenty of time tomorrow to consider further these matters and, if necessary, we shall have to continue into next week. That is quite all right as far as we are concerned.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know what that has to do with the Amendment before us.

Mr. Macmillan: I must apologise, Mr. Speaker, but I was led into this by the hope that it was not through any fear of delay that the right hon. Gentleman contented himself with formally moving, without any explanation or word, an Amendment of this kind. It is a pretty tremendous Amendment. The history of this discrimination is curious. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that after consideration of the case at various stages both in this House and in another place, the Government decided, contrary to their first intentions, to introduce a Clause against discrimination or undue preference. The right hon. Gentleman takes great pride in that—but it was only under a great deal of pressure that the Government agreed to doing so. Well, we are glad to have it, but what does the right hon. Gentleman do? He introduces this Amendment, which makes it perfectly certain that he will lose nothing by his concession, because here he is making his Clause absolutely inoperative. The proposed subsection says:
Nothing in this section shall be construed as imposing on the Corporation, either directly or indirectly, any form of duty or liability enforceable by proceedings before any court.
By whom, then, is it to be enforced? Not by the courts, the traditional method by which the rights of the subject throughout the centuries have been enforced. It has been just on this point that the Executive and Parliament have quarrelled over so many generations—the whole history nobody knows better than the Home Secretary. I think he must be ashamed to have an Amendment of this kind moved in his presence. I once believed he stood for freedom in many forms, yet he allows an Amendment to be put in which is really meaningless, because there are no means of enforcing it except by the courts. He says the Minister can enforce it. Then why put it in, if the Minister has these powers. The Minister cannot enforce it. Experience of the nationalised industries shows it is extremely difficult to bring pressure


on a Minister in any particular case. In many generalised cases we can raise the matter by Question in Parliament, but if it is against a particular discrimination or preference, we are told it arises from the day-to-day business of the Corporation and it is not a fit subject on which to question a Minister. This is the whole battle that has gone on for many months now. An attempt is being made to build up a new procedure of the House in regard to these nationalised industries. The House of Commons has not been very successful in resisting this and procedure has not been at all satisfactory.
Therefore, if this right of special protection of individual cases, apart from any general question, is not to be given by the courts, I say that the words put in are pure eyewash, and have no meaning. We might just as well have stood where we did at the beginning. The non-discrimination Clause is not worth the paper it is written on. The public will judge the intentions of all Governments. I know that there are hon. Members below the Gangway and in all parts of the House who have pleaded and will plead this cause of the rights of the subject whatever party may be in power. Such cases have been pleaded by many hon. Members opposite. I say that it is wrong to follow a procedure which tends to increase the power of the Executive.
There was a famous Motion moved in this House once which hon. Members may remember. It was to the effect that the power of the Crown was increasing, and ought to be diminished. In recent years there has been an increase of power, not of the Crown as it was in the eighteenth century, but of the Executive acting for the Crown. The only method of keeping the freedom which the individual has, or ought to have, in a Socialist State—the freedom which I believe many hon. Members want the individual to have—is to give the courts the right to judge individual cases. There is not an hon. Member who does not know from his own correspondence, and the cases which he has to take up with Government Departments, how frightfully strong is the power of the Executive. They know how difficult it is, even for an hon. Member who has what he thinks is a pretty good case, to break through

the tremendous defences which the bureaucracy can put up. I challenge any hon. Member, even if he has had only four years' experience in this House—and even more, the hon. Member who has had 24 years' experience—on this matter.
I say that the power of the courts, wherever it can be introduced, is by far the best protection of the individual against the Executive, of whatever Party it may be composed, and whatever may be the complexion of the Government in power. I do ask the Home Secretary to think over this matter again, and to judge it in the light of his own reading of history and in the light of his own experience in administration, both as a Minister and as a private Member of this House. The subsection does not even leave it in doubt, does not even leave it for the courts to make their own decisions; but whatever else happens, regarding this discrimination it shall never be the right of the individual to take it to the justices or to the courts. It shall be the sole prerogative of the Minister and the Executive to decide.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I would like to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland a question, and I hope we shall be given a direct answer. The question which I wish to ask him is whether he has given his consent to this Amendment. I notice that my question is perfectly clear to him. If he has given his consent to this Amendment, he has betrayed his trust as Secretary of State for Scotland. The hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) may laugh, but he knows that it is a fact that the basis of the law of Scotland has always been the freedom of the individual, and it has always been that the people of Scotland control the country, and not the Executive. There have been constant wars in Scotland for that sole purpose and if the Secretary of State today has publicly said to the people of Scotland—as I presume his silence means he has—that he has approved of this Amendment, then he has given up that age-long right for which we have fought. The blame will lie upon his own head. He is a traitor to his country, if he agrees to this.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in Order for an hon.


Member to use the word "traitor" in respect of another hon. Member?

Mr. Speaker: I have spoken on that before. I think it is wrong for an hon. Member to say of another that he is a traitor.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if I have transgressed the Rules; I will say he is a traitor to the principle. I think that will be in Order, although I do not know the precise legal difference. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where is the Attorney-General?"] Perhaps the Lord Advocate will be able to help; but as the Secretary of State has not said that he has not approved this Amendment, we in Scotland must assume he has given away that for which we have fought for a thousand years.

Mr. C. Williams: I have listened to every word which has been spoken on this Amendment with very great attention and for the life of me I cannot understand why we are having it at this stage of the Bill. But then, why are we constantly putting into the Bills before this House Amendments which prevent the ordinary subject from having his age-long right of appeal to the courts? Why are we placing this great monopoly of the iron and steel business above the law, and entirely beyond the courts of the country? The hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) was referring to the position in Scotland, but so far as we are concerned in England, our concern for the law is far higher and far deeper than it is with the Scottish people. Historical examples, which one might be tempted to quote to prove how our rights have been controverted, would not, I think, be welcome at this time of day. But if the Scots object to the functions of this Amendment, which seeks to over-ride the law and put this present miserable Government above the law, I would remind the House that, "those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad."
I say frankly that, when the people of this country, and of Scotland, learn that this is the kind of afterthought which is

put into the Bill at the present moment, they will realise that the intention is to root out the ordinary people and to take away the rights of the common man and woman, and that Socialism is to be developed to the full and is nothing more than a Communist dictatorship.

6.45 a.m.

Mr. Butcher: I feel that I should be neglecting my duty if I merely registered a silent vote against the taking away of the rights of the people of this country, which the Minister is seeking to perpetrate by this Amendment. This, I say, is one further step towards the police State, which seems to be something inevitably associated with Socialism. We are losing the right of the people to have their cases freely and impartially examined by the King's judges; the only right they will have for redress, will be at the will and whim of the Minister. The right the citizen enjoys at the present time is to apply to the courts for an injunction.
Immediately we take away that right the citizen is left with nothing to do except to write letters to the Consumers Council or to invite his Member to write to the Minister, and this Minister of all Ministers whose Department is notorious for its delays in dealing with correspondence; the fact is that the complexities of the Department are such that the office cannot keep up with the work imposed upon it. The alternatives are an immediate injunction granted by one of His Majesty's judges, or a dilatory procedure through the private office of the Department. This is what the Minister is asking us to exchange. The Government are making a deliberate, knowing and calculated attack on the liberties of the people, and Members opposite sit in silence and, I believe, in shame, watching what he is doing.

Mr. Whiteley: Mr. Whiteley rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 128.

Division No. 234.]
AYES
[6.50 a.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Baird, J.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Attewell, H. C.
Balfour, A.


Albu, A. H.
Austin, H. Lewis
Barstow, P. G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Awbery, S. S.
Barton, C.


Alton, A. C. (Bosworth)
Bacon, Miss A.
Bechervaise, A. E.




Berry, H.
Hardy, E. A.
Popplewell, E.


Bing, G. H. C.
Harrison, J.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Binns, J.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Price, M. Philips


Blenkinsop, A.
Haworth, J.
Pritt, D. N.


Blytom W. R.
Henderson,, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Proctor, W. T.


Boardman, H.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Bottomley A. G.
Herbison, Miss M.
Randall, H. E.


Bowden, Fig Offr. H. W.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Rankin, J.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Hobson, C. R.
Ranger, J.


Bramall, E. A.
Holman, P.
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Reeves, J.


Brown, George (Belper)
Horabin, T. L.
Rhodes, H.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Houghton, Doug'as
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hoy, J.
Robens, A.


Burden, T. W.
Hubbard, T.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Burke, W. A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Callaghan, James
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'ton, W.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Carmichael, James
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Chamberlain, R. A.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Sargood, R.


Champion, A. J.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Scollan, T.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Johnston, Douglas
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Cocks, F. S.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Sharp, Granville


Coldrick, W.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Shurmer, P.


Collick, P.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Collindridge, F.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Collins, V. J.
Keenan, W.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Cook, T. F.
Kenyon, C.
Simmons, C. J.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Skeffington, A. M.


Cove, W. G.
Kinley, J.
Skinnard, F. W.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lang, G.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Cullen, Mrs.
Lavers, S.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Daines, P.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, Edward (Bursfem)
Levy, B. W.
Sparks, J. A.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Steele, T.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lindgren, G. S.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)


Deer, G.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Stross, Dr. B.


Diamond, J.
Logan, D. G.
Stubbs, A. E.


Dobbie, W.
Longden, F.
Swingler, S.


Dodds, N. N.
Lyne, A. W.
Sylvester, G. O.


Driberg, T. E. N.
McAdam, W.
Symonds, A. L.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
McAllister, G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dumpleton, C. W.
McEntee, V. La. T.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Dye, S.
Mack, J. D.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
McKintay, A. S.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
McLeavy, F.
Timmons, J.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Tolley, L.


Ewart, R.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Farthing, W. J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Usborne, Henry


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Field, Capt W. J.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Walker, G. H.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Warbey, W. N.


Foot, M. M.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Watkins, T. E.


Forman, J. C.
Mellish, R. J.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Messer, F.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Freeman, J. (Watford)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
West, D. G.


Gallacher, W.
Mikardo, Ian.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mitchison, G. R.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Gibbins, J.
Monslow, W.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Gibson, C. W.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Wigg, George


Gilzean, A.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mort, D. L.
Wilkins, W. A.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Nally, W.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Grenfell, D. R.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Grey, C. F.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Grierson, E.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanetly)
O'Brien, T.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Oliver, G. H.
Willis, E.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Orbach, M.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Gunter, R. J.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wise, Major F. J.


Guy, W. H.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Pargiter, G. A.
Woods, G. S.


Hale, Leslie
Parkin, B. T.
Wyatt, W.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Pearson, A.
Yates, V. F.


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Peart, T. F.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Perrins, W.



Hardman, D. R.
Pools, Cecil (Lichfield)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Snow and Mr. George Wallace







NOES


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Harden, J. R. E.
Nield, B. (Chester)


Astor, Hon. M.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Nutting, Anthony


Barlow, Sir J.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Odey, G. W.


Bennett, Sir P.
Haughton, S. G.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Birch, Nigel
Head, Brig. A. H.
Pickthorn, K.


Boothby, R.
Hope, Lord J.
Pitman, I. J.


Bower, N.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Prescott, Stanley


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Raikes, H. V.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Butcher, H. W.
Keeling, E. H.
Ranton, D.


Carson, E.
Langford-Holt, J.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Challen, C.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Channon, H.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ropner, Col. L.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Smithers, Sir W.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Linstead, H. N.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Spence, H. R.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Low, A. R. W.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Sutcliffe, H.


De la Bère, R.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Donner, P. W.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
McCallum, Maj. D.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Drayson, G. B.
McFarlane, C. S.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Drewe, C.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Eccles, D. M.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thorp, Brigadier, R. A. F.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Touche, G. C.


Elliot, Lieut,-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Turton, R. H.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Fox, Sir G.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Marples, A. E.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Maude, J. C.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Gammans, L. D.
Mellor, Sir J.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Molson, A. H. E.
York, C.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)



Granville, E. (Eye)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gridley, Sir A.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Colonel Wheatley and


Grimston, R. V.
Nicholson, G.
Mr. Wingfield Digby.

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 259; Noes, 129.

Division No. 235.]
AYES
[6.58 a.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Burke, W. A.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Callaghan, James
Dumpleton, C. W.


Albu, A. H.
Carmichael, James
Dye, S.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Chamberlain, R. A.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Champion, A. J.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)


Attewell, H. C.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)


Austin, H. Lewis
Cocks, F. S.
Ewart, R.


Awbery, S. S.
Coldrick, W.
Farthing, W. J.


Bacon, Miss A.
Collick, P.
Fernyhough, E.


Baird, J.
Collindridge, F.
Field, Capt. W. J.


Balfour, A.
Collins, V. J.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)


Barstow, P. G.
Cook, T. F.
Foot, M. M.


Barton, C.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Forman, J. C.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Cove, W. G.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)


Berry, H.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Freeman, J. (Watford)


Bing, G. H. C.
Cullen, Mrs.
Gallacher, W.


Binns, J.
Daines, P.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.


Blenkinsop, A.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Gibbins, J.


Blyton, W. R.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Gibson, C. W.


Boardman, H.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Gilzean, A.


Bottomley, A. G.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Deer, G.
Grenfell, D. R.


Bramall, E. A.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Grey, C. F.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Delargy, H. J.
Grierson, E.


Brown, George (Belper)
Diamond, J.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Dobbie, W.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Dodds, N. N.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)


Burden, T. W.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden




Gunter, R. J.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Guy, W. H.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Hale, Leslie
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Simmons, C. J.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Mann, Mrs. J.
Skeffington, A. M.


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Skinnard, F. W.


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Hardman, D. R.
Mellish, R. J.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Hardy, E. A.
Messer, F.
Sorenson, R. W.


Harrison, J.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Sparks, J. A.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mikardo, Ian.
Steele, T.


Haworth, J.
Mitchison, G. R.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Monslow, W.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Stross, Dr. B.


Herbison, Miss M.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Stubbs, A. E.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mort, D. L.
Swingler, S.


Hobson, C. R.
Moyle, A.
Sylvester, G. O.


Holman, P.
Nally, W.
Symonds, A. L.


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Horabin, T. L.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Houghton, Douglas
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Hoy, J.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hubbard, T.
O'Brien, T.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Oliver, G. H.
Timmons, J.


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'ton, W.)
Orbach, M.
Tolley, L.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Usborne, Henry


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Pargiter, G. A.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Parkin, B. T.
Walker, G. H.


Johnston, Douglas
Pearson, A.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Peart, T. F.
Warbey, W. N.


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Perrins, W.
Watkins, T. E.


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Popplewell, E.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Keenan, W.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
West, D. G.


Kenyon, C.
Price, M. Philips
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Pritt, D. N.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Kinley, J.
Proctor, W. T.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Lang, G.
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Wigg, George


Lavers, S.
Randall, H. E.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Ranger, J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Rankin, J.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Levy, B. W.
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Reeves, J.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Rhodes, H.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Lindgren, G. S.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Robens, A.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Logan, D. G.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Willis, E.


Longden, F.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Lyne, A. W.
Robinson, Kenneth (St Pancras N.,
Wise, Major F. J.


McAdam, W.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


McAllister, G.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Woods, G. S.


McEntee, V. La. T.
Sargood, R.
Wyatt, W.


Mack, J. D.
Scollan, T.
Yates, V. F.


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth.


McKinlay, A. S.
Sharp, Granville



McLeavy, F.
Shurmer, P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Snow and Mr. George Wallace.




NOES


Amory, D. Heathcoat
De la Bère, R.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)


Astor, Hon. M.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)


Baldwin, A. E.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.


Barlow, Sir J.
Donner, P. W.
Haughton, S. G.


Bennett, Sir P.
Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Head, Brig. A. H.


Birch, Nigel
Drayson, G. B.
Hope, Lord J.


Boothby, R.
Drewe, C.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)


Bower, N.
Eccles, D. M.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Fox, Sir G.
Keeling, E. H.


Butcher, H. W.
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Langford-Holt, J.


Carson, E.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Challen, C.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Channon, H.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Gammans, L. D.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Linstead, H. N.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Granville, E. (Eye)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Gridley, Sir A.
Low, A. R. W.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Grimston, R. V.
Lucas, Major Sir J.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Harden, J. R. E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.







Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Nutting, Anthony
Sutcliffe, H.


MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Odey, G. W.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


McCallum, Maj. D.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Taylor, Vice-Adm, E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


McFarlane, C. S.
Pickthorn, K.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Pitman, I. J.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Prescott, Stanley
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Raikes, H. V.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Ramsay, Maj. S.
Touche, G. C.


Marples, A. E.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Turton, R. H.


Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Renton, D.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Mauda, J. C.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Mellor, Sir J.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Molson, A. H. E.
Ropner, Col. L.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Smithers, Sir W.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Spearman, A. C. M.
York, C.


Nicholson, G.
Spence, H. R.



Nield, B. (Chaster)
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Brigadier Mackeson and




Colonel Wheatley.

New Clause "B."—(APPOINTMENT OF IRON AND STEEL PRICES BOARD.)

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 17, at the end to insert new Clause "B"—

"(1) The Minister shall, within a period of six months after the general date of transfer, by order establish an Iron and Steel Prices Board (hereinafter in this section referred to as 'the Board').
(2) The Board shall consist of the following members—

(a) an independent chairman, appointed by the Lord Chancellor and being a person having legal or accountancy qualifications or such other qualifications as the Lord Chancellor may consider appropriate;
(b) a member appointed by the Minister to represent the interests of the Corporation and its subsidiaries as producers of specified products;
(c) a member appointed by the Minister to represent the interests of producers of specified products other than the Corporation and its subsidiaries;
(d) a member appointed by the Minister, after consultation with the Iron and Steel Consumers' Council, to represent the interests of consumers of specified products;
(e) a member appointed by the Minister to represent the interests of workers in the iron and steel industry; and
(f) such additional members, not exceeding two, as the Minister may from time to time appoint, for the consideration of any particular matter.

(3) No person who is a member or officer of the Corporation or a director or officer of any subsidiary of the Corporation shall be qualified to be appointed or to be the chairman of the Board. The members of the Board shall not at any time include more than two persons who are members or officers of the Corporation or directors or officers of any subsidiary of the Corporation. No person who is a member of the Commons House of Parliament shall be qualified to be appointed or to be a member of the Board.
(4) In this section the expression 'specified products' means iron or steel products of any of the descriptions set out in the Tenth

Schedule to this Act and such other descriptions as may be specified in an order of the Minister made under subsection (9) of this section, and the expression 'iron or steel products' means products wholly or mainly composed of iron or steel.
(5) It shall be the duty of the Board to consider:

(a) any representation, which may be made to them by the Iron and Steel Consumers' Council or by any other person who appears to the Board to be a person affected or representative of the interests of a class or classes of persons affected, with respect to the prices at which or the terms and conditions on which all or any of the specified products are sold or supplied by any producer or class or classes of producers of such products;
(b) any matter which may be referred to them by the Minister for consideration, including without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, a review of the prices at which and the terms and conditions on which all or any of the specified products are sold or supplied by any producer or class or classes of producers of such products; and
(c) any proposal for the making of an order under subsection (9) of this section specifying other descriptions of iron or steel products for the purposes of this section.

(6) When the Board have considered any such representation or matter or proposal as aforesaid, they shall make to the Minister a report thereon containing such recommendations if any as they think fit.
(7) Without prejudice to the exercise of any powers conferred by or under any enactment other than this Act, on any Minister of the Crown or Government Department, the Minister may from time to time, on receiving a recommendation in that behalf from the Board, make in accordance with that recommendation an order for controlling the prices at which and the terms and conditions on which all or any of the specified products may be sold or supplied by any producer or class or classes of producers of such products.
(8) Any person who contravenes or fails to comply with the requirements of an order made under subsection (7) of this section shall be


guilty of an offence under this Act and shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction to imprisonment for not more than three months or to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds or to both such imprisonment and such fine; or
(b) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for not more than two years or to a fine not exceeding whichever is the higher of the two following amounts—

(i) One thousand pounds;
(ii) Three times the amount of any benefits derived by him from the offence;

or to both such imprisonment and such fine.

(9) The Minister may from time to time on receiving a recommendation in that behalf from the Board, make in accordance with that recommendation an order specifying a further description of iron or steel products for the purposes of this section:
Provided that the Minister shall not make such an order with respect to any description of iron or steel products, unless it appears to him that at least one third by weight of the iron or steel products of that description supplied in the United Kingdom are supplied by the Corporation and its subsidiaries.

(10) The power conferred by subsections (7) and (9) of this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and any such statutory instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(11) The Board shall, as respects each financial year of the Corporation, make to the Minister a report on the exercise and performance by the Board of their functions during that year, and the Minister shall lay a copy of every such annual report before each House of Parliament, together with a statement of any action which has been taken by him in that year in consequence of any recommendation made to him by the Board.

(12) The Minister and any producer of the said products shall provide the Board with all such information and other assistance as the Board may reasonably require for the exercise and performance of their functions under this section.

(13) The order made by the Minister under subsection (1) of this section establishing the Board shall provide for such incidental or supplementary matters as appear to the Minister to be necessary or expedient to provide for the purpose of giving full effect to this section including provisions—

(a) as to the procedure of the Board;
(b) requiring the Corporation to provide for the Board such officers and office accommodation as appear to the Minister to be requisite for the proper exercise and performance of their functions, subject to the approval of the Treasury with respect to the number of such officers; and
(c) for the payment by the Corporation of such remuneration and allowances to the chairman and other members of the Board and to their officers as the Minister with the approval of the Treasury may determine."

Mr. J. Jones: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Clause proposes that a board shall be set up consisting of an independent chairman; two producers, one representing, the publicly-owned companies and one the independent producers; representatives of consumers and workers in the industry and not more than two additional members. I refer to the constitution because it would be drawn from types of persons similar to those who will compose the Corporation itself. The duties of the board under the suggested Amendment would be to consider any questions of prices of specified iron and steel products referred to them either by consumers interests or by the Minister himself and they might be required by the Minister to undertake a sectional or comprehensive price review and to extend to the privately-owned as well as the publicly-owned companies. It is laid down that the board may make representations to the Minister and in accordance with their recommendations he may make an order controlling the prices at which iron and steel products should be sold.
We object to the proposed Amendment on the ground that it is inconsistent with Clause 6 (4, a) which gives the Consumers' Council the right to consider prices. I know that the Consumers' Council is beginning to be looked upon as something which has nothing to do, but it is definitely laid down in that Clause that the Council shall have the right to consider prices and without doubt it gives the Consumers' Council the right if they think fit to set up a committee or committees to deal with that important aspect of their work. Under the proposed new Clause there would be a control over the price at which independent producers sell their products. I make this point, because as the House knows my right hon. Friend has this control at present under the Defence Regulations. We would not seek to suggest that this should become a permanent feature, but it is desirable that iron and steel products sold by independent producers should be subject to statutory control.

Mr. Lyttelton: I want a little elucidation. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government are in favour of that


part of the Lords Amendment which relates to the statutory control of prices charged by outsiders?

Mr. Jones: No, I am not saying that. What I was saying is the Minister has control under the Defence Regulations, but we do not seek to make that a permanent feature. It is desirable that iron and steel products which are sold by outsiders should be subject to statutory control. It is desirable that there should be control at the moment and possibly for some period of time to come.
Under the suggested Amendment the Minister would be given no independent power of initiative whatever, because any order which he would make under the Lords Amendment has to be made in accordance with the recommendation. In other words, the Minister would be compelled under the proposed Amendment to make an order in accordance with the recommendation as to particular prices. We cannot find from the proposed Amendment on what principle it rests. Is it to be in the public interests, or is it to be on the basis of a fair profit for the independent producers or the maintenance of a fair profit for the Corporation or what? Is the Corporation to be forced to keep up prices to enable the independent producers to live? These questions are not answered in the suggested Amendment.
No doubt the Opposition would claim that the Bill itself does not answer these questions. I suggest that the Opposition look at Clause 3, where it is laid down that it is the duty of the Corporation to make Second Schedule products available at such price as may seem best calculated to satisfy reasonable demands and further the public interest. We recognise the supreme importance of price. It is one of the great factors which today is receiving the attention of every section of the House. However, we suggest to the House and particularly to the Opposition that, having regard to what we have laid down in Clauses 3, 4 and 6, that point is fully covered. Clause 3 deals with the general duty of the Corporation, while Clause 4 lays down the general obligation to give the Minister accounts and other reports of the Corporation's activities. Clause 6 deals with the Consumers' Council. We believe that in those three Clauses there is sufficient safeguard on the question of prices.
There is plenty of evidence that what the Opposition are seeking to set up is a body similar to the recently disposed or resigned Iron and Steel Board.
7.15 a.m.
We recognise and appreciate that the Opposition are just as anxious as we are to maintain the control over price, which is in the interest of the consumer, the producer and the public. The Bill combines ownership with supervision, whereas before we had supervision without ownership. That puts a different complexion on what the new Corporation can do compared with what happened under the Steel Board. We feel that there is no room inside the Bill for an additional supervisory body such as this.
Another point is that the consumers will have a predominant voice on the consumers' council. They will have the right to make representations to the Corporation or representations direct to the Minister. The Minister himself has the right to make directions to the Corporation about price. The Minister cannot fail at any stage of the work of the Corporation to know if there is any tendency for excessive prices which will be reflected in excessive profits or in money being placed to reserve. Price is adequately dealt with in the Clauses to which I have referred. There is no need for, nor would there be room for, a new body as suggested in the Amendment.

Colonel Hutchison: In the Clause relating to consumers, can the hon. Gentleman point to a subsection giving a complainant the right to have his case on price considered? He can put in a complaint, but there is nothing which gives him an automatic right to have it considered.

Mr. Jones: Clause 6 (4, a) lays down:
The Council shall be charged with the duties … of considering any matter affecting the interests of the consumers (including prices).
It goes on:
A matter to which consideration ought to be given apart from any such representation, and, where action appears to them to be requisite as to any such matter, of notifying their conclusions to the Corporation.
I made it very clear that the Council would have the right to make their conclusions


known to the Corporation. Subsection (5) says:
The Council shall send to the Minister copies of any conclusion notified or report made to the Corporation, and shall send to the Corporation copies of any report or representation made to the Minister.
By that method they will be able to make known to the Minister and to the Corporation their conclusions arising from discussions they have had to ascertain the opinions of consumers' interests.

Mr. Lyttelton: This is an important matter because, with all these nationalised corporations, we have not yet worked out, especially with regard to prices, a machinery which is satisfactory to anybody on either side of the House. On this occasion the Joint Parliamentary Secretary made the best possible case from the Government's point of view, although he does not always do so, but we do not agree with it, in the main for two reasons. We think it is necessary to curb the Minister's powers. As we discuss the Bill it becomes more and more obvious that the Minister's powers get wider and wider, and they will be extremely difficult to carry out, especially in matters of detail. This is not really a party point at all. It is an administrative point of some importance. We think that the Minister's powers are too wide and will involve him in too much administrative detail.
Secondly, we entirely deny the competence or suitability of the Consumers' Council to act in the particular matter of prices. I hope I can say without offence to the Parliamentary Secretary that when he was addressing himself to this point he greatly over-simplified the underlying problem. It is not a matter of dealing only, or primarily, with the consumers' complaints about the price, shape, or size of the steel. It is something much more than that. There may be no complaints at all, yet the margin of profit may be too low to permit the nationalised Corporation to put sufficient sums to reserve to keep plant in modern condition or to keep them from getting their fingers into the taxpayers' pockets direct. Nor in the export prices is it desirable to keep materials at a price below the competitive price. We want to keep them at a competitive price to

enable us to take the business. Government policy may involve the export of structural steel to the Colonies or for some development scheme which the Government has at heart. Neither on the matter of export prices, nor on the matter of the differentiation between various prices of steel, is the Consumers' Council the appropriate body.
I take a very dim view of the Consumers' Council in any of these functions. I believe that it is quite certain that they are wholly incompetent to deal with the profit margins which enable the industry to maintain the differentiation between one type of steel and another, and with the general export policy. Whatever the merits of the Consumers' Council they are not competent to deal with those matters. As an instance of relative prices may I take a distant example. I have seen myself, under planned economy in the United States, the largest livestock population on the hoof, and no meat available in the consuming centres, because the selling price was such that it never reached the market. The same kind of thing could happen easily in the case of steel and steel alloy. I have seen the high price of copper drive the consumer into using aluminium as a substitute. These are matters affecting the efficient operation of the industry, and no one can regard them as the appropriate functions of the Consumers' Council.

Mr. J. Jones: The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that I was making out a case for the Consumers' Council fixing prices. I was careful to give illustrations of the type of persons likely to go on the new board, and from where they might be drawn. I made the point that it was the Corporation which fixes the prices and the Consumers' Council which had the right to complain about the prices.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am quite seized of the point. The point I am trying to make is that the price list of the steel industry is a matter of hundreds of thousands of different prices, and some expert body is required, other than the Consumers' Council, to take the burden off the Minister, and secure that the general relationship between all these prices, and the policy with regard to export prices,


and with regard to profit depreciation and so forth—that all these functions are taken from the Minister, at any rate in the first instance. We think that the present system—if it can be graced with the name of a system—this airy-fairy idea that it will work all right on the day—would have some substantial basis if there were an expert body of this kind set up.
Some hon. Members opposite in the Committee stage described this proposal as another piece of bureaucratic red tape, and the whole business as quite impracticable. Yet it is a reversion to a system which has worked so admirably, in one form or another, since the introduction of the Import Duties in 1932 or 1933. If the Minister tries to say that this is impracticable I will produce the most positive of all proofs—that it has worked well over the last few years. It will turn out to be necessary to have some body of expert men to insulate the Minister from these small administrative details.
Nor is the Corporation the right body, holding as it does such immense control over the raw materials of so many other industries, and at the same time being in competition with a large sector of the steel industry under private enterprise. It is not sufficiently impartial to be charged in the first instance with this function. Therefore the Amendment their Lordships have sent down, and which follows a suggestion we made in Committee, is that this body should be set up to continue the system which has successfully functioned over the last few years.

Mr. York: I think I might almost claim the indulgence of the House, as this is my maiden speech on this Bill, and if I become a little unmaidenly, put that down to the hour of the night. [HON. MEMBERS: "Morning".] Technically it is still night. I think that perhaps a fresh mind ought to be brought to bear on this subject, and that I can usefully offer some sound advice to the House because my mind is so fresh, unlike the somnolent and almost sonorous minds which face me.
There are one or two points which particularly appeal to me in dealing with this Amendment, because unlike some of the others it is not couched in completely unintelligible legal jargon but is a straightforward principle that anyone can understand, however sleepy. It is also one on which the weight of argument is on

our side. I was not the least impressed by the Parliamentary Secretary's case, as I understood it. That may have been his fault or mine, but I should say in general it is the fault of the Minister when his case cannot be understood by the House. He chided their Lordships with producing no principles on which the new Clause might be run. To defeat that argument he produced Clauses 3 and 4, with certain other embroideries. Search as I may, I cannot find in them any of those principles. That is the type of defence which the Parliamentary Secretary put up.
7.30 a.m.
The real point in the argument is that we do not trust the Steel Corporation. I am convinced that it has no possibilities of protecting the taxpayers, the citizens and the consumers. It is set up by a political coterie for a political purpose and the coterie will act as a political coterie always acts—it will provide more jobs for the boys. That is the first and most important reason why I think this method of settling principles by an external and independent body is far preferable to a combination of politicians and late politicians. We have experience of these corporations already. We cannot say we think the Overseas Food Corporation is a good guardian of the people's interests. It is squandering money right and left by bad administration and by lack of planning. We believe the Steel Corporation will be open to exactly the same direction. In the same way the Airways Corporations are being unsuccessful in their administration of our air affairs. Is there any reason, therefore, why we should allow another Corporation to be set up which may be inefficient and probably will be if this Government has the chance to mess about with it. We believe that the Corporation in itself is no fit and proper person to have the power of controlling prices, as is supposed to happen under the Bill.
This Corporation is a monopoly, but it is worse than a monopoly—it is a political racket. When these political rackets are set up by a political party for a political purpose, obviously they are going to rig everything, including the prices which come within their purview. This is the inevitable consequence of Socialism. Whatever else goes wrong in the economy of the country, those industries which have already been


nationalised are not going to suffer through any lack of high prices. It is high prices we on this side fear. It is obvious that the Corporation and the Minister are going to be boys together. They are joining together in unholy matrimony for purposes of acquiring power. I said unholy matrimony, because I would never consider the Socialist Party capable of holy matrimony. Unholy matrimony is the same thing as living in sin.
I now want to consider the protection which the consumer has, because that to me is very important. Under the Bill the Government offers us this Consumers' Council. That is a body of, I believe, 30 to 40 people whose antecedents I have already described as very dubious. Whether any of them will have any knowledge of the steel trade is, at the moment, arguable. Perhaps some of them will. But, at any rate, it is a very large body. It will, presumably, for that reason be unable to meet frequently. It certainly could not, in times of crisis or stress, be in continuous session, as might be necessary for price movements. In general terms, as the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) has said, it is totally incapable, because of its constitution, of dealing adequately with prices. Under the Clause proposed by their Lordships, certain strong and important safeguards exist.
Today, at any rate, so far as my experience goes, the prices of the sorts of steel which I use are tending to ease. That is a very important thing for me as a consumer, although I am a very small consumer, using perhaps 30 tons a year. It might be argued that, consequently, price changes are not so important to me as they would be to a big manufacturing firm. But they are important to me, and I will give one brief illustration of how that comes about.
I have spent a good deal of time, with a friend of mine, developing a process for the erection of buildings—in my case, farm buildings—which would save about 25 per cent. of steel without in any way reducing the strength of the buildings. Suppose the Corporation comes along and, for its own nefarious purposes, or, it may be, for some perfectly good purpose like the national

interest—which of course means the opinion of the Minister in charge—raises prices against me. The effect of that rise in prices, which to me would appear, and probably would be, quite irresponsible, would be that my attempt to save money on capital construction would be entirely overthrown by this action on the part of the Board. All I could do would be to find out where this Consumers' Council last set up its camp, and then send my complaint forward to that vast bureaucracy which, I am sure, so large a council will need to look after, if not its administrative work, at any rate its social work.
The question of the Consumers' Council has also been brought home to us by the National Coal Board and the coal nationalisation measure. All that I, again as a consumer, have got from that Consumers' Council is a continually undefended flank upon which the Coal Board, or may be the political reputation of the Minister of Fuel and Power, is steadily building in order to increase my costs of production. I believe that when one comes to deal with a great subject like the price of steel, which with coal, probably leads to the most important price discussions which take place in this country, there is need for a small, compact body of men chosen not because of their political connection, but because of real administrative ability. A small body, yes, but also an independent body; an independent body outside the Steel Corporation, and outside the Minister's powers.

Mr. David Jones: Who selects this body?

Mr. York: If the hon. Member will read the Amendment, he will see. I would read out the Clause but I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that you would approve of that. But in our contention, the Minister, by himself, is no protector of consumers' interests. His political reputation is at stake in any decision he takes, and that is another reason why we agree with another place. It is far more in the public interest that this independent body—the price board—should first make the recommendation and, agreeing to certain circumstances, such as the proportion of output, which is under the control of the Corporation, the Minister should take the recommendation of the Board and act on it. The


Parliamentary Secretary I thought made the point that the board would produce a lot of "red tape."

Mr. J. Jones: Mr. J. Jones indicated dissent—

Mr. York: I thought that was so, but if he did not, I apologise; but my point is that this small and very select body would require no large staff, and as it would be able to obtain information from the Corporation, it would really be able to work with the smallest office which this Socialist Government, at any rate, has ever seen. For these, and the other reasons developed by my hon. Friends, I support this Amendment, and I hope that the Government having heard the new views put forward by an hon. Member who does not pretend to be an expert on this Bill, and who has not so far made any speech on the Bill, will accept my advice.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: My hon. Friend who has just spoken was wrong in only one point in the course of his long and interesting speech. It was Lord Pakenham who described this Steel Prices Board as "a piece of red tape," but the description, coming from a member of the Government, was rather typical of the attitude on this matter. Machinery is designed to protect the consumer against this great State monopoly. When one establishes a large monopoly, one of the things that has to be done is the creation of some such prices board as that suggested in the Amendment. I am surprised that the Government should have contested that position.
7.45 a.m.
The only argument the Parliamentary Secretary advanced was that the Board, if the Amendment were accepted, would be drawn from the same type of people as the Corporation. That is not true, and if it were true, what of it? It would make not the slightest difference. The point is that the members of the Board would be independent of the Corporation. It is not true because the Board, as detailed in this Amendment, contains persons representing all the consumers' interests. Earlier in our discussions, it will be remembered that the Government deliberately turned down the suggestion that anyone with special knowledge of the industrial consumer interest should be on the Corporation. There is a clear distinction between the two. It may be that

the Parliamentary Secretary has forgotten what was said earlier on. I think that that alone disposes of his point.
The really important thing is that the Board would be quite independent of the Corporation. He said, what has been repeated time after time during our discussions last night, that the Consumers' Council would do this, and he referred us to Clause 6 (4, a). There is nothing in that subsection which gives the Consumers' Council power to fix prices. What is the point of a suggestion of that kind? It is an entirely different matter. This Amendment would, in fact, give some teeth to the Consumers' Council, because instead of making airy recommendations as to what they think a price might be, they could pass their recommendation to a body which, through the proper machinery, could get a Ministerial order affecting the price.
The most extraordinary thing about the Government is that whenever an Amendment is put forward with some teeth in it they reject it right away. If it is suggested that the consumer should have the right to go to the courts they say it is a monstrous thing, and any proposal to fix prices is entirely out of their ken. I think the country views with considerable disquiet what may happen to steel prices if ever the industry were put under the Corporation. I do not think the country would tolerate such a position arising. I think that this Bill will be turned down and the people who introduced it turned out.
What other precedents have we got? It is true to say that in the case of every nationalised industry prices have gone up steadily. The most interesting thing is where a nationalised industry has no price control, such as road transport. I had a letter put in my hands from a road transport firm which shows how they were treated by a monopoly. Their prices of transport within five weeks of nationalisation went up from 65s. to 94s. a ton for transport between Glasgow and Leeds and Leeds and London. There was no question of any consultation with them or any party. The Bill just came in and put the prices up, increasing them virtually by 334 per cent. That is what would happen in this case, too. The letter reads:
The British Transport Commission or their various organisations do not let us know the charges have been increased or give us any


explanation for the increase. There is nothing to prevent the British Transport Commission or the British Railways from increasing their charges a further 40–50 per cent., as they know full well there is no other means of the goods being delivered.
that is the key. Give these people the monopoly and they do not even bother to apologise for the increase.

Mr. Cecil Poole: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously asking the House at this time of the morning to accept his statement that there is no power at all to prevent the railways increasing their charges to any figure they like? That is utterly ridiculous.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Member is not listening to my argument. I was talking about road haulage. I said quite specifically that if we want to get a clear case and example, we should take the case of a nationalised industry in which there is no form of price control. It is quite true that the railways come under the Railway Rates Tribunal and the rest, but in this case the road haulage organisation have had their fares increased by 33⅓ per cent.

Mr. Poole: Will the hon. Member read the extract from the letter on which he bases his case?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Again? With pleasure, if the hon. Member wishes me to do so. After all, we can sit next Monday and Tuesday if necessary. I do hope the Patronage Secretary will not use it as an excuse for moving the Closure. I think I will go on to the next part of the letter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] All right, I will read it again. I will read the whole letter. There are eight pages of it. The portion of the letter I read states:
The British Transport Commission or their various organisations do not let us know the charges have been increased or give us any explanation for the increase. There is nothing to prevent the British Transport Commission or the British Railways from increasing their charges a further 40–50 per cent., as they know full well there is no other means of the goods being delivered.

Mr. Poole: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that statement?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Certainly, I accept it. If the hon. Member had followed what has been going on, he would realise that is perfectly true. There are hundreds of

thousands of traders in this country at the mercy of this great monopoly. They formerly sent goods by road haulage cheaply and they have—

Mr. Speaker: I do not think we can have a Debate on road haulage, because it is not in this Bill.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I fully agree with that. Had it not been for the intervention, my reference, which I was using for the purpose of illustration, would have been much shorter. Perhaps I may draw the lessons from it. Precisely the same position will occur in this steel industry. These steel firms will be taken over and the monopoly will have within their powers exactly the same power these other monopolies have. We shall have the same thing as has happened in coal. Quite recently I was talking to a man who was earning £6 a week and he said, "The anthracite for the kitchen stove arrived this morning and it is another 10s. a cwt." It is happening not only in the big firms but in hundreds of homes. Housewives are being penalised and the Government have the effrontery to whine on the wireless about the increase of prices.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): Can the hon. Member tell the House how long anthracite has been 10s. a cwt.?

Mr. Thorneycroft: It was increased by 10s. a ton; I am much obliged. But the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power need not sit back so self-satisfied at the increase of 10s. a ton at this time. The Government have the effrontery to say they are trying to keep prices down. If they want to keep prices down the answer is to stop establishing these State monopolies and continuing on this path of folly, and have a sensible board which charges prices to suit the consumer.

Mr. Eccles: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply did say price was all important. The trouble with the modern monopolies is not so much that they do not make excessive profits as they put up the cost. The old sanction we used to have when there was competition was that the consumer could change his supplier. When the sanction existed both sides of


industry concerned in the level of cost knew they could not go too far. If the men asked for too much in wages they knew the business would go bankrupt. If, on the other hand, they were going to be given too low wages labour could not be hired. If costs were raised too much out of line with the rest of industry that firm went bankrupt; even the whole of the industry might go bankrupt.
Our problem is that the sanction is removed where there is a State monopoly. The long suffering and patient taxpayer is underwriting the rise in cost. It is essential that when a monopoly is set up some substitute for the ordinary play of the market should be put into the Bill. Under the iron and steel arrangements before the war, when private industry was the owner, prices came to be fixed. It was seen already in the years before the war that some kind of independent price fixing was necessary. That is why we had the Import Duties Advisory Committee operating the general notion that the industry could not get a tariff unless it justified its cost structure and the prices it was asking.
When we come to the Bill we find no substitute for the Iron and Steel Federation, afterwards the Iron and Steel Board and the I.A.C., to give protection to the consumer against rises in costs. It is where the Minister needs help. What are we to do about it? The Bill is quite unsatisfactory and that is why this Clause has been brought forward in another place. The cost has to be gone into all the time. It could not be done by the Consumers' Council. In the public interest prices should never be too far wrong; they should be looked at in advance. The Consumers' Council does not bring in an efficient substitute for the old organisation we had before.
8.0 a.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary talked about the only danger being that prices were to be too high and that nobody wanted too high prices. What is the principle upon which the prices of a monopoly should be fixed? He spoke as though a conflict existed between two principles—one, the public interest and the other, fair profits. That is a very interesting doctrine that there is such a conflict, but he will find that that is not so. If prices are too high and excessive profit is made, that is bad—we all agree

about that—but if they are too low, then of course the Corporation has to come to the taxpayer for more money and it is not supposed to do that. "Taking one year with another," it must cover its costs and that means finding working capital as well. I do not think there is any conflict between the public interest and a fair profit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) mentioned what has happened with regard to road transport, but it is not only in his part of the world that that has happened. It is certainly so in my part of the world, and the general reason given for raising the price of road transport in my part of the world is that we are going to see that the railways are given a rather better show. The prices have been raised in order that the road shall not take everything away from the rail.
That just shows how dangerous it is to have a monopoly which has certain sections of its price schedules outside control, and which it can do what it likes with, in order to bolster up some other part of the monopoly. It might charge too little. I think hon. Members opposite will recognise that even chain-store businesses do the same as the Co-operatives and undercut other traders in certain areas in order to establish themselves there without using their own shareholders' money. That is a gamble which is a business risk and we cannot quarrel with that if we believe in enterprise.
But if they are using taxpayers' money to go into new lines of business and then undercut the producer who is a taxpayer himself, that is not fair and it requires some kind of price-fixing machinery, independent of the Minister. I think that is a very strong point in the new Clause that the Parliamentary Secretary attacked, as that new Clause is designed to protect consumers. One of the obvious reasons for the new Clause is to protect independent producers from prices designed simply to undercut them out of business.
That is happening, I feel, with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens). Does he know that in certain parts of the Southern Electricity Area when a firm gets an order from a customer to instal some electrical machine it must go to


the local office of the Board and there get a permit to connect the house and supply the current. The moment that man comes to the office, the Board's representatives run round to the customer, having discovered who he is, and they say, "We will instal the machine for you more cheaply if you will drop your private supplier."

Mr. Tolley: It is not forced upon the consumer.

Mr. Eccles: That is the kind of thing against which protection is needed. Does the hon. Member think it is fair to get that information and then go round the corner and cut the other people's throat? That is a very interesting admission.
What is to take the place of the old price fixing machinery? We must have something. I do not know whether this Clause would work perfectly, but it is better than anything in the Bill at the moment. It is not right that the monopoly power of fixing prices should rest with the Minister. How on earth can he do it? It is not a question of looking at one or two prices; there may be a thousand prices or more. It is quite impossible for the Minister to oversee all that. He will have to have some sort of set-up to examine them the whole time as we did under the old Iron and Steel Federation, the Iron and Steel Board and the Import Duties Advisory Committee. Otherwise we shall have one more case of prices rigged either by ignorance or through sheer partisan reasons.

Sir Ralph Glyn: No explanation has been forthcoming of what will happen with regard to foreign competition if this Clause is not accepted, and if prices are not fixed here, taking into consideration the type of steel which it is necessary to use in this country in connection with certain industries, and which is produced abroad. How will these prices be affected unless a Clause of this kind is accepted by the Government?
During the war it was quite obvious to a great many consumers of steel that the variation of price, compared with what the prices were abroad, was having a very difficult effect on all the contractors who were treating with the Government, especially with regard to the United

States. In that country steel prices are automatically fixed on account of the free competition. I listened to the discussion and I cannot understand the Government's objection to this proposal. It seems as if it is all in their favour.
I think it is a fact that the rise in prices is making the whole policy of nationalisation extremely unpopular in the country, and I should have thought it was the desire of the Government this time, in dealing with the iron and steel industry, to see that that does not occur. If this Clause is turned down, I take it for purely political reasons, it will have a boomerang effect on the Government. The Parliamentary Secretary did not convince me by his argument that suggestions made in another place were not such as to improve the working of the Bill from this point of view.
Some of us are interested in steel as consumers. I am connected with two concerns which depend entirely, in regard to competition abroad, on the prices for which they can get their steel. The House ought to know that the experts on whom we rely are extremely apprehensive as to the future of the shipbuilding industry in this country if we cannot get plates at prices competitive with other countries. Shipowners will not continue placing orders until the prices come down. We are seriously concerned about the effect on the workers. We cannot go on building ships at a price which the shipowners will not pay, and ships are being built abroad at highly competitive prices. If we cannot look forward with certainty to the price at which steel plates can be bought, it is quite impossible to enter into contracts with foreign shipowners. That matter will be protected to a great extent if this proposal is accepted.

Mr. Scollan: As to shipbuilders not being able to take on further orders, is the hon. Gentleman aware that John Brown and Company, of Clydebank, a week or two ago declared over £2 million profit this year?

Sir R. Glyn: I only hope John Brown and Company will have £2 million of profit to declare after this Bill becomes an Act. It is utterly impossible. If they have made a profit—I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman—it is because of the present system.

Mr. Scollan: Exactly.

Sir R. Glyn: What will be the effect on the workers of Clydebank? They cannot be employed if forward contracts cannot be made. The hon. Member must be as interested as I am in seeing that British shipyards do not enter into a slump, and surely he cannot deny that the most important factor in quoting forward for a vessel is the price at which one will obtain the plates. As long as that is in doubt, one cannot enter into the contracts with the same assurance as foreign shipbuilders.
There is another matter in connection with certain types of machinery. At present the propulsion machinery of many ships is undergoing considerable changes. Certain inventions are coming forward which will, I believe, considerably modify the existing type of turbine. That is entirely dependent upon our getting the very highest quality steel which can be produced. The United States are producing that steel; we are not producing it with the same success as the United States. That is because scientific development in this connection has cost British industry very large sums. In order to carry through those schemes, the development has to be tried out in the United States. That is a very unfortunate situation.
The Minister, whose acquaintance with these matters is intimate, cannot deny that if we are to succeed in retaining a lot of men in employment in certain types of industry which consume steel, the most important factor is to know with some assurance the price one will have to pay for the plates. Because there has been no satisfactory explanation by the Government, I very much regret that the Government have not seen their way to accept this proposal.

Mr. Attewell: I do not think I ought to apologise for taking the time of the House for what I have to say. The greater part of the discussion seems to have been a reiteration of what was said in Committee. I intervene because I was somewhat intrigued by the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York), who likened himself to a blushing maiden. I should have thought that the phrase of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) "a brazen hussey" or "a painted harlot" would

have been a better description. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I did not mean the hon. Member. I am referring to his description. He came in from a sleep, and then departed to take the night cream from his face. He then gave us the benefit of his non-knowledge of the steel industry. When we read his speech in HANSARD, we shall find that not many speeches have got nearer to the knuckle in rather low criticism of another party.
8.15 a.m.
I want to turn the words "the socialism of the Socialist Government" into the actual fact, "the capitalist ownership of the steel industry." All the things the hon. Member said about the Socialist Government were done under private ownership of steel in the past. Who were the boys who had the jobs in the steel industry in the past? When there is talk of the racket which is likely to take place, what was the racket which took place in the steel industry which led to the setting up of the May Committee, which gave judgment concerning prices in those days. The weekly paper which deals with economics said that it was very difficult to find out just how the prices of steel had been fixed.
Everyone knows that charges about what the Socialist Government may do to the industry can be paralleled by what took place in the past. We could never ruin the industry more than the owners ruined it between the wars, when even the banks, with many of the companies on the verge of bankruptcy, had places in the offices of those companies for their own nominees. They were pawns in the hands of the banks. We shall never get as low as the steel firms when their shares were reduced to 2s. each.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Did the hon. Gentleman support a tariff on cheap imported steel in 1931?

Mr. Attewell: We can deal with that another time. I am doing my best to destroy the case of the hon. Member for Ripon. We have heard the arguments before. Every industry is brought in. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) referred to electricity. Does he really want us to understand that when someone goes to the Electricity Board for permission to instal wiring he has to state the contract price?

Mr. Eccles: I never said that. I said that when they go for the permission, they have to go by Statute. That is the rule of the game. That means that the boards get information as to who wants a new immersion heater or a refrigerator, and they use that immediately to go to the person and try to get the business. Does the hon. Member think that fair?

Mr. Attewell: I do not think it is fair, and I do not think it is done. The point is that a report has to be made in the interests of safety. In the old days anyone with a knowledge of fixing wiring could go in and do it, and we can see the results of that wiring in some homes now. I do not think that the impression given by the hon. Member for Chippenham is correct, that when people seek permission from the boards, the boards send round touts to get the contract from them. The Opposition's proposal for a price committee is designed to safeguard and protect private interests, and to safeguard the firms which are outside the steel control. The Opposition have proved themselves to be supporters of one section of the community—the private section—against the interests of the mass of the people, to whom the Steel Board will be their salvation.

Mr. Frederic Harris: The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Attewell) has referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. York). I must admit that he came into the House appearing very fresh—he must have had some sleep—and gave us the benefit of a very good speech. I must also admit that he went out of the House quickly again. But that is just one of those things. Most of us are a little sleepy and tired after what we have gone through.
This is an important issue, however we look at the Bill. Whatever the Government succeed in doing, if they should get the power, one must fully understand that they are changing one ownership for another. They have admitted that they have no plan for what they are going to do, and the effect will be, in the end, a question of price. Events have proved that once we start on nationalisation, administration becomes heavy and that prices tend to rise. When we tamper with things like transport, coal, and iron and steel, we tamper with things that affect nearly every manufacturing concern,

and this affects prices which, in turn, have long-range results on our export trade and on the goods we can sell at home. On this issue price is the keynote of the whole matter.
I cannot see why the Government should not support any sensible suggestion—I think one can leave party aside, because the question of price is an internal issue—and why they will not accept the sound and commonsense recommendation one would wish to put into effect in any large-scale business. If this goes forward on the basis of the Government's present suggestions, we are going to have the Minister responsible in the end, and deciding the question of prices. That is an entirely improper responsibility for a Minister who, at the same time, has complete responsibility for the financial success of the iron and steel industry when the Government take it over. I do not see how it can be said to a Minister, "It is your responsibility to make a financial success of this, and not to come to the House and say that here is something else which under nationalisation has lost money," and at the same time give him complete power to decide prices. The obvious results would follow, and very serious results indeed.
The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles), and others, have made it clear how, in the case of coal, the price has gone up and the effect of that has been reflected in all our manufacturing costs Here, again, it would follow that after nationalisation we might well get administrative costs mounting, and immediately we should see the effect on iron and steel prices, just as we have seen it happen in the case of transport and coal. The results of that would be disastrous on our export trade, and would be very serious on the job we are trying to do internally. The result may easily be that in a few years we may have a surplus of iron and steel; it is a feasible proposition.
That brings in a very serious problem in regard to price. The Minister, in his desire to see the industry come out on the right side, would automatically chase after his prices, and the price of steel would go up. Where a Ministry comes into operation on a scale such as this a State monopoly cannot govern things. Look at the Post Office: prices have


gone up, and people have to pay more. We cannot keep on supporting these burdens, and very shortly we shall have a day of reckoning—if it is not already here.
Surely the Minister should see the sense of this argument of having a small body of capable men to advise and guide him. All he has so far is the Consumers' Council. I think he has agreed—at any rate, the Parliamentary Secretary has—that they would not wish to refer to the Consumers' Council in regard to prices. Therefore, it falls back to the Minister. It is suggested that he should have a body of capable men, men of experience, who would guide him and be a safeguard to him in this whole question of watching prices. They would be sitting constantly, and on such an important issue that is vital today.
Manufacturers are having to keep an almost constant watch on prices. They are so peculiar, tumbling all over the place, first one rising and then another, that unless you do watch them closely you can easily come out thousands of pounds on the wrong side. This cannot be a more serious issue than it is at present. I say to the Minister, "Why will you not accept this sensible suggestion?" It is perhaps the most serious point of all if we are going forward with this Bill at all.
I have tried to put the case as I see it, not from a party point of view at all, but from a sincere, practical, commonsense point of view. Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that, even if he is much more capable than others may possibly think him, he will be able to guide iron and steel prices, with all their ramifications, through the years ahead? Does he believe any Minister could do it? Why is he denying himself the opportunity given him by this proposal? I sincerely hope the Government will think again, seriously, on such a sound suggestion.

8.30 a.m.

Colonel Haughton: The Lord President has said, more than once, that nationalised industries must justify themselves by performance. I think he would agree that at least three principal factors in success would be maintenance of quality, maintenance of price and maintenance

of output, which should be in ever-increasing quantity at a time when we want more exports. I wonder how the great shipyards will stand under this Bill. Have the thousands of workers in the shipyards any right to imagine that the passing of this Bill and the creation of a monopoly will enable them, in Belfast and elsewhere, to obtain the quantities of steel they require at a price to meet international competition, and of a quality which will maintain British standards?
I thought the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) was unfair in what he said, although I do not think he wants to be unfair, by putting the gross profits of John Brown at over £2,000,000. I think it would have been fairer if he had gone on to analyse the main features of that balance sheet. He might have quoted that 52 per cent. went to taxation, the amount of money which went for maintenance, upkeep and repair, and the dividends which were kept at a fixed standard. I do not want to stray outside the Debate, but I think that the hon. Member will find one of the finest patterns of division of gross profits if he turns to last Tuesday's "Financial Times" and looks at the report of Cadbury's, which for four generations have ploughed profits back into their business.

Mr. Scollan: I read both with great care and interest. The difference between them is this: I have no criticism to make of Cadbury's because they have never been known to treat an employee shabbily. But I know a man who was for 50 years employed in John Brown's and the day he retired not even the manager came to say, "Thank you." He retired without a pension or a single penny. [An HON. MEMBER: "So did Lord Ammon."] He got the sack in 50 minutes.

Colonel Haughton: I accept the facts given by the hon. Gentleman. But I was dealing with the division of gross profits and I think the hon. Gentleman would have been fairer if, instead of dealing with the gross profits, he had dealt with the net profits. As I say, the Lord President said that nationalised industries must depend upon their own performance. If the Minister in charge of this Bill is going to reject this sensible Clause, would he give this House the same guarantee that this iron and steel monopoly


will also be judged by its performance as regards quality, international competitive price and output.

Sir W. Darling: This Clause offers the Minister an escape from the very real dilemma with which I think he is faced. Under private enterprise the check of price is the competitive system and that, roughly, is good enough. But under a State monopoly what are the checks which society must have against the inevitable extortions and misuse of power by a monopoly? The Lords Amendment suggests that they have a care for the common weal which the Minister, up to now, has failed to show. How will the Minister arrange for the control of prices? He is throwing on one side the former price-fixing system which has been in use for something like 20 years, and has been a fairly satisfactory method of fixing prices for iron and steel, and intends to rely upon a management group to deal with this problem. This matter of prices is a separate and distinct factor. It is a consumers' factor, and the Minister must give consideration to what method, if any, he is going to use to fix prices.
As the Minister is aware, of the iron castings business, something like 80 per cent. is free of the management of the Corporation. Are the products of the important field of cast iron to go uncontrolled, so far as prices are concerned, except by the central management body? If that is so, it will be a serious matter for the building trades, who use a considerable amount of iron castings, and for the domestic users of these commodities. The prices of these commodities have been subject, generally, to great fluctuation over the last 20 years. There has been a price-fixing system to adjust that. But now there will be no price-fixing system.
The Minister is in a dilemma, which he must face. I doubt if anything would be as satisfactory, and would give as much public confidence, as setting up a separate committee as envisaged by the Lords Amendment. I feel that the whole trend of this Debate has shown a lack of plan, and a passion for the unity and streamlined planning which a central monopoly undoubtedly will give. But there has been evidence in speeches which I have heard from the other side of the

House, as well as from this side, that there is some feeling that the consumers' interest is not being fully consulted. The Consumers' Council does not seem to satisfy public opinion.
I speak as one connected with the engineering trade. We buy thousands of tons of steel in the year. We look with apprehension at the proposed change in the method by which we have been able, hitherto, to get, by and large, the commodities we wanted. I very much agreed with the hon. Member who spoke for the shipbuilding industry, that there is anxiety and unsettlement, and the suggestion made in this Amendment would, I believe, establish confidence. If it were eventually found that the price-fixing machinery was not necessary, or was superfluous, it could be merged with the central management body. At the moment there is a public demand for some price-fixing machinery such as has been in existence, because it is felt that it is likely to be as necessary in the future as it was in the past.
This is an important matter, and this Amendment comes to us from another place where it was sponsored by men with quite as much experience in, and responsibility for, industry as have some hon. Members of this House. I think there is need for this, and until the Minister can put forward his proposals, I should be inclined to support the Amendment.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: As a comparative newcomer to this discussion I have been hoping to hear from the Government side of the House a sound, compelling reason why they do not want to accept this Amendment; hitherto, that has been lacking. What is the actual position? Up to now, for many years, the prices of steel products have been fixed by the Minister of the day on the advice of an independent expert body, and as far as I know, the recommendations of that body have been accepted by the Minister who has not, in fact, exercised his power to alter them. I think that has, breadly speaking, been the case. It is very difficult to understand why a comparatively tidy scheme like that which, after all, has worked successfully for many years, and which has resulted in the price of steel products comparing not unfavourably


with those in other cheap steel producing countries of the world should not be continued. Why have the Government a sudden passion for changing this system, substituting the system set forth in the Bill? What is the effect of the system in the Bill? Up to now there has been one expert price-fixing body daily going into the costings of the various firms. Under the Bill there will be a comparatively chaotic state of affairs. The new Corporation will fix its own prices for two separate classes of products; under Clause 3, as drafted, the Corporation is instructed to have regard to the public interest—the phrase is always cropping up—in fixing the prices which it charges for Second Schedule steel products.
So far as any ancillary products are concerned, it is free to charge what it likes, subject only to a complaint by the Consumers' Council. But these two categories do not by any means cover the whole of the steel products from this country. There is a large range to be manufactured by the independent concerns, and so far as they are concerned the Parliamentary Secretary says the Government will set up another body within the Ministry to control these prices for the immediate future, if not for a longer period. So, instead of a single body dealing with all this, there is the Corporation fixing its own price, and some new, indeterminate body inside the Ministry fixing the price for the private individual.
Why set up these three different sets of prices instead of one? There can, in my view, be only one reason, and it is this. The Minister realises that in this case, as in other nationalised industries, the result of nationalisation is bound to

be increased costs. We saw it on the coal and electricity nationalisation Bills, when the Government refused Amendments to say that the object of the new Electricity Authority was to cheapen electricity. As we now know, immediately after nationalisation, prices went up. Now they desire to get rid of this independent expert body, which was able to decide a fair and reasonable price for the whole range of steel products. They realise that the Corporation will not be able to produce steel as cheaply after nationalisation as before because, otherwise, surely, they would have no objection to continuing this expert body, which has worked so well for many years.

8.45 a.m.

Finally, they suggest that it will be an adequate safeguard for the consumer to be able to appeal to the Consumers' Council. They do not say how the Consumers' Council will work, and judging from our experience with coal it is hardly worth setting up. We all know that the Coal Board has disregarded any views of the Consumers' Council, and has raised the prices not only to external consumers but also to our unfortunate clients overseas. It is perfectly clear that the only logical reason why the Government refuse to accept this Amendment is that they are afraid, with good reason, that one of the immediate results of nationalisation will be an increase in prices.

Mr. Whiteley: Mr. Whiteley rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 102.

Division No. 236.]
AYES
[8.50 a.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Binns, J.
Chetwynd, G. R.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Blenkinsop, A.
Cocks, F. S.


Albu, A. H.
Bottomley, A. G.
Collindridge, F.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Collins, V. J.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Cook, T. F.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Bramall, E. A.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)


Attewell, H. C.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Cove, W. G.


Awbery, S. S.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Cullen, Mrs.


Ayles, W. H.
Brown, George (Belper)
Daines, P.


Bacon, Miss A.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Baird, J.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)


Balfour, A.
Burden, T. W.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)


Barstow, P. G.
Burke, W. A.
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Barton, C.
Callaghan, James
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Carmichael, James
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)


Berry, H.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Deer, G.


Bing, G. H. C.
Champion, A. J.
de Freitas, Geoffrey




Delargy, H. J.
Levy, B. W.
Sargood, R.


Diamond, J.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Scollan, T.


Dobbie, W.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Dodds, N. N.
Lindgren, G. S.
Sharp, Granville


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Shurmer, P.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Logan, D. G.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Dye, S.
Longden, F.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lyne, A. W.
Simmons, C. J.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
McAdam, W.
Skeffington, A. M.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
McEntee, V. La. T.
Skinnard, F. W.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mack, J. D.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Ewart, R.
McKinlay, A. S.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Farthing, W. J.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Sorensen, R. W.


Fernyhough, E.
McLeavy, F.
Sparks, J. A.


Field, Capt. W. J.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Steele, T.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Stokes, R. R.


Foot, M. M.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Forman, J. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Stross, Dr. B.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Stubbs, A. E.


Gibbins, J.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Swingler, S.


Gibson, C. W.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Sylvester, G. O.


Gilzean, A.
Mellish, R. J.
Symonds, A. L.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mikardo, Ian.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Grey, C. F.
Mitchison, G. R.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Grierson, E.
Monslow, W.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mort, D. L.
Timmons, J.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Moyle, A.
Tolley, L.


Guy, W. H.
Nally, W.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Usborne, Henry


Hale, Leslie
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Walker, G. H.


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
O'Brien, T.
Warbey, W. N.


Hardman, D. R.
Oliver, G. H.
Watkins, T. E.


Harrison, J.
Orbach, M.
Watson, W. M.


Haworth, J.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Herbison, Miss M.
Pargiter, G. A.
West, D. G.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Parkin, B. T.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Holman, P.
Pearson, A.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Perrins, W.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Horabin, T. L.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Wigg, George


Hoy, J.
Popplewell, E.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Hubbard, T.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Wilkins, W. A.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Price, M. Philips
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'ton, W.)
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Pryde, D. J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Ranger, J.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Rankin, J.
Willis, E.


Johnston, Douglas
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Reeves, J.
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Rhodes, H.
Wise, Major F. J.


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Keenan, W.
Roberts, A.
Woods, G. S.


Kenyon, C.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Wyatt, W.


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Yates, V. F.


Kinley, J.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Rogers, G. H. R.



Lang, G.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lavers, S.
Royle, C.
Mr. Snow and




Mr. George Wallace.




NOES


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Gates, Maj. E. E.


Astor, Hon. M.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Glyn, Sir R.


Baldwin, A. E.
Darling, Sir W. Y.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Barlow, Sir J.
Davidson, Viscountess
Grimston, R. V.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)


Bennett, Sir P.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.


Bower, N.
Donner, P. W.
Haughton, S. G.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Drayson, G. B.
Head, Brig. A. H.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Eccles, D. M.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Hope, Lord J.


Carson, E.
Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)


Challen, C.
Fox, Sir G.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Channon, H.
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Langford-Holt, J.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Gammans, L. D.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.







Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Spence, H. R.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Nicholson, G.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Linstead, H. N.
Nield, B. (Chester)
Sutcliffe, H.


Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Nutting, Anthony
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Lucas, Major Sir J.
Odey, G. W.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Pickthorn, K.
Touche, G. C.


MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Pitman, I. J.
Turton, R. H.


McFarlane, C. S.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Prescott, Stanley
Ward, Hon. G. R.


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Ramsay, Maj. S.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Rayner, Brig. R.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Marples, A. E.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
York, C.


Mellor, Sir J.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)



Molson, A. H. E.
Smithers, Sir W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Spearman, A. C. M.
Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.

Question put accordingly, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment"

The House divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 104.

Division No. 237.]
AYES
[8.57 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Diamond, J.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Dobbie, W.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)


Albu, A. H.
Dodds, N. N.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Keenan, W.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Dumpleton, C. W.
Kenyon, C.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Dye, S.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.


Attewell, H. C.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.


Awbery, S. S.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lang, G.


Ayles, W. H.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Lavers, S.


Bacon, Miss A.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Baird, J.
Ewart, R.
Levy, B. W.


Balfour, A.
Farthing, W. J.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Barstow, P. G.
Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Barton, C.
Field, Capt. W. J.
Lindgren, G. S.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Berry, H.
Foot, M. M.
Logan, D. G.


Bing, G. H. C.
Forman, J. C.
Longden, F.


Binns, J.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Lyne, A. W.


Blenkinsop, A.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
McAdam, W.


Blyton, W. R.
Gibbins, J.
McEntee, V. La. T.


Bottomley, A. G.
Gibson, C. W.
Mack, J. D.


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Gilzean, A.
McKinlay, A. S.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Bramall, E. A.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
McLeavy, F.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Grey, C. F.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Grierson, E.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Brown, George (Belper)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Mann, Mrs. J.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Burden, T. W.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Burke, W. A.
Guy, W. H.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Callaghan, James
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mellish, R. J.


Carmichael, James
Hale, Leslie
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Mikardo, Ian.


Champion, A. J.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Mitchison, G. R.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Monslow, W.


Cocks, F. S.
Hardman, D. R.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Collindridge, F.
Harrison, J.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Collins, V. J.
Haworth, J.
Mort, D. L.


Cook, T. F.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Moyle, A.


Corbel, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Herbison, Miss M.
Nally, W.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Cove, W. G.
Hobson, C. R.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Crawley, A.
Holman, P.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Cullen, Mrs.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Daines, P.
Horabin, T. L.
O'Brien, T.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hoy, J.
Oliver, G. H.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hubbard, T.
Orbach, M.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'ton, W.)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Pargiter, G. A.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Parkin, B. T.


Deer, G.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Pearson, A.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Perrins, W.


Delargy, H. J.
Johnston, Douglas
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)




Popplewell, E.
Skeffington, A. M.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Skinnard, F. W.
Warbey, W. N.


Price, M. Philips
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Watkins, T. E.


Proctor, W. T.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S)
Watson, W. M.


Pryde, D. J.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Pursey, Comdr. H.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Randall, H. E.
Sparks, J. A.
West, D. G.


Ranger, J.
Steele, T.
Wheatley; Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Rankin, J.
Stokes, R. R.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Rees-Williams, D. R.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wigg, George


Reeves, J.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Rhodes, H.
Stross, Dr. B.
Wilkins, W. A.


Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Stubbs, A. E.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Robens, A.
Swingler, S.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Sylvester, G. O.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Symonds, A. L.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Rogers, G. H. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morperh)
Willis, E.


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Royle, C.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


Sargood, R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wise, Major F. J.


Scollan, T.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Timmons, J.
Woods, G. S.


Sharp, Granville
Tolley, L.
Wyatt, W.


Shurmer, P.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Yates, V. F.


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Usborne, Henry
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.



Simmons, C. J.
Walker, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Snow and Mr. George Wallace.




NOES


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Odey, G. W.


Astor, Hon. M.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Baldwin, A. E.
Haughton, S. G.
Pickthorn, K.


Barlow, Sir J.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Pitman, I. J.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Bennett, Sir P.
Hope, Lord J.
Prescott, Stanley


Bower, N.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Langford-Holt, J.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Carson, E.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Challen, C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Channon, H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Smithers, Sir W.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Linstead, H. N.
Spence, H. R.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Davidson, Viscountess
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Donner, P. W.
McFarlane, C. S.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Drayson, G. B.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Touche, G. C.


Drewe, C.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Turton, R. H.


Eccles, D. M.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Marples, A. E.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Fox, Sir G.
Mellor, Sir J.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Molson, A. H. E.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gammans, L. D.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
York, C.


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Glyn, Sir R.
Nicholson, G.



Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Nield, B. (Chester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gridley, Sir A.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Major Conant and


Grimston, R. V.
Nutting, Anthony
Brigadier Mackeson.

Clause 11.—(TRANSFER TO CORPORATION OF SECURITIES OF SCHEDULED COMPANIES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 21, to leave out "May" and insert "July."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I think it would meet the general convenience of the House if this and the following four Amendments, all dealing with the date, were discussed together.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the Amendment to which, I understand, the Opposition attach the very greatest importance. We have been told by their spokesmen in another place that, whatever they may do in regard to the other Amendments that they have moved into the Bill when they are returned to them by this House, they are


likely to stand by this particular Amendment, which postpones the vesting date from 1st May, 1950, which was the day in the Bill as it left this House, to 1st July, 1951. The House will remember that the date of 1st May, 1950, is not rigid, in the sense that the Minister has power to vary that date and to make the vesting date any date which he thinks proper and convenient within 18 months of the Royal Assent. What is it that the Lords propose to do in this Amendment? They say that in no circumstances will the public companies be vested in the Corporation until 1st July, 1951; that is just about two years from now. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that there will be a General Election between now and the vesting date to give the electorate an opportunity of recording a verdict on this Bill.
I and my colleagues feel very strongly that it is intolerable that the duly elected Government of this country, elected on a very specific mandate, including the nationalisation of this industry, should be told by the other House—which is not an elected body and which has no responsibility to the electorate—that this Bill may not be carried into effect unless and until the electorate have pronounced on it twice; once at the last Election and once at the coming Election. In brief, that is what the House of Lords are suggesting in this Amendment. They are demanding a double mandate from the electorate before the Bill is put into operation.
Quite apart from the merits of the dates of July, 1951, or May, 1950, I say that that is a position which this Government certainly cannot accept. I should have thought that this House of Commons, quite irrespective of party, would consider it intolerable that they should be dictated to in this way by the House of Lords and be told that a Measure they consider of vital importance to the country cannot be put into operation until it has been voted on twice by the electorate.
Under the proposal of the House of Lords, not only is this Government tied and unable to put into effect a Measure which it believes urgently desirable, in order that we may carry out our policy of employment and prosperity for our people, but the Government after the next Election will be tied. I do not know, but there may well be an Election in the

early Spring of next year. I have no more knowledge of the date than anyone else in the House, but it is conceivable that it may be in the early Spring. If it were it would mean that it would be impossible to put this Bill into operation until 15 months after the date of the Election, and therefore the next Government—which undoubtedly will be a Labour Government—will also be tied by the Amendment proposed by another place which has no electoral responsibility in this matter whatsoever. I again say that that is quite intolerable, and it is an attitude which should be rejected, irrespective of party, by all sides of this House and not alone by this Government.
There is one other point I should like to make. I have always taken the view—and I think it is fairly widely accepted by hon. Members on the other side of the House—that once any great Measure of nationalisation such as this has been accepted it is highly desirable in the interests of the industry that that nationalisation should be implemented as quickly as possible, because the gap between the passing of the Act and its implementation is bound to be a period of suspense, if not actual dislocation. There will be a certain anxiety among boards of directors about the future of their companies, their development plans, and so on. We always recognised that there would be a small measure of suspended animation, which I did not think would be serious but would be inevitable between the passing and the implementation of the Act.
It is desirable in the interests of the industry that the delay should be as short as possible. We took the view that nine months was the maximum time required for the transfer, though it might be done more quickly if necessary. We believe that nine months is ample time for the Corporation to be established, to make the necessary contacts and establish the proper relationships with the publicly-owned companies and get the thing going. But under this proposal it may be we shall have a gap of two years between the passage of the Bill and its implementation. That again I say is an irresponsible action, and likely to bring about most severe damage to the iron and steel industry itself. Anything that is damaging to the iron and steel industry


is damaging to the industry of the country generally. For that reason I very much regret the irresponsible action of those who moved this Amendment into this Bill.
I want to say this further. It may be that the suggestion or threat which has been made in another place to stand by this Amendment will mean, if it is carried out, that the Bill may appear to some to be either dead or moribund for the time being. I think it is right that the Government should make their intention perfectly clear as to the future and to all the companies in the iron and steel industry who are concerned. I, therefore, want to make this very specific statement, which I hope will be noted by those who have a direct interest in this matter. Should this Amendment, which we are considering now, be insisted upon in another place, with the consequence that the Bill is not passed in this Session, I want to make it perfectly clear that it is the firm intention of the Government that this Bill should be passed into law at the earliest practical date. In particular, I think it should be known that when the Bill is again presented it will contain the provisions concerning the disclaimer of agreements and leases, control of dividends, power to acquire securities of certain additional companies, the prohibition of the transfer of iron and steel works and the recovery of assets and other transactions resulting in the dissipation of assets. The Government will definitely adhere to these provisions and they will be retrospective to the same date or dates as those now provided for in the Bill.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Under the Parliament Act it should be the same Bill.

Mr. Strauss: I want to make this clear to those who may not be as fully aware of the constitutional aspects of this Bill as the right hon. Gentleman. There are many people in the industry who may not be fully aware of the situation, and it is right that they should know authoritatively from the Government that it is their intention to present this Bill anew with the same provisions as they exist today.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is it also Government policy to use the words that the new Bill may or may not come under the Parliament Act?

9.15 a.m.

Mr. Strauss: I was stating an obvious fact. It may or it may not. I used that phrase in reply to the interruption of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), who said that the Bill to come in under the Parliament Act must be exactly the same as that now before the House. It is desirable that everybody should understand the position of the Government. It is also possible that this Bill may be presented in another Parliament. That is conceivable, too, and it will also contain this provision of retrospective dates, which are contained in the Bill we are discussing today. I have made the position of the Government clear on this matter. The date has been discussed over and over again in the Commons. It has been discussed upstairs, on the Report stage and also on the Third Reading. I have indicated the attitude of the Government to the Amendment moved in another place, which we cannot accept and which we think is a really intolerable Amendment. I have declared that it is the intention of the Government to introduce this Bill again at the first possible moment, because we believe that it is absolutely essential if we are to plan our national resources in the common interest, and if we are to be in a position to carry out the policy on which we have set our hearts—to maintain full employment and prosperity.

Mr. Lyttelton: The "rosy-fingered dawn" has not brought any more reason to the Minister of Supply. He first of all has taken us upon a very extraordinary expedition into constitutional matters, in the course of which he proved himself to be an amateur. It is very unfortunate for the Government that it should take the final stages of this cynical and frivolous Bill, a week after the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down here and told us we were entering a very severe economic crisis. This industry has all along been beating its record, and only a man who is credulity itself would say that this expansion was due to the workers seeing the dawn of nationalisation in the distance. Apparently the Minister of Supply considers there is something improper—I think "fantastic" was the actual word he used—in the House of Lords delaying legislation. That is the function of the House of Lords.

Mr. Palmer: Its only function.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am glad hon. Members opposite realise what the Constitution is, but it is not the only function of the House of Lords. If hon. Members will look at the way in which the House of Lords have dealt with recent legislation, they will understand why Government spokesmen in this House have paid tribute to the way in which the Lords have carried out their constitutional duties. It is no good even the Minister of Food imagining that he can laugh off the Constitution. He cannot do so. There are such things as mandates which have become stale even if originally this was a mandate. The Government have no mandate for this particular Measure, and, as the lawyers say, that which falls within the mandate now is old and so many things have happened since it was put before the electorate, that it is right and proper that the electorate should pronounce again upon this matter. It is quite ludicrous to suppose that even if nothing very startling had happened, the mandate given in those particular terms in 1945 is still sufficient to enable so wide a Measure to be passed without further consideration by the electorate.
The Minister of Supply made some play with the long period which must elapse, if this Amendment were accepted, between today and the vesting date. What he should really have addressed himself to is the absence of any plan. During this Debate the one thing which remains sharply in my mind is that they have no idea what they are going to do with these assets. The only excuse for this Bill is that nothing is going to be changed. Then why change? Does not the record of the industry prove that case? The Government have no plan and they have now to form one. Prudent people would have formed a plan first and then fixed the vesting date so that the plan could be put into operation.
The Government could have formed a plan during the last year or two, but there is no possibility of a plan being formed between now and 1st May, 1950, and it is quite impossible even to get round the necessary personalities to make this thing work. They are to await the General Election which has got to take place between now and June, unless the Minister of Food thinks that is not part

of the Constitution. Everyone is aware of that fact, and no one will be willing to serve on the Corporation, and give up his present job, until he is certain that this scheme is to be carried out. The only reason I can see why the Government have selected 1st May, 1950, is because they have no confidence whatever in their electoral prospects. That is the only explanation we can give.
Nothing is going to be prejudiced for the ardent nationaliser by allowing the Government time to formulate a plan and take the necessary steps where they can to get and select the men for the plan. On purely practical grounds it is absolutely necessary to have a longer period for formulating a plan and taking the necessary preliminary steps, so that when the vesting date comes the Corporation and the constituent companies have the greatest chance of working successfully. The Government have only one answer. They say "Although we are going to indulge in the financial operation nothing is going to be changed. All the directors of the companies are to carry on. We do not know whether there will be central finance. This matter will be worked out."

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman continually makes the statement that we do not know anything about central finance. It is all stated clearly and precisely in the Bill. The situation is made clear in Clause 32.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am aware of these temporary borrowing measures. I asked the right hon. Gentleman earlier in this Debate whether he intended to cancel individual borrowing and secure that the whole of the finances are made available from the central Corporation. We have never received an answer to that simple question.

Mr. Strauss: Subsection (2) of Clause 32 deals with it.

Mr. Lyttelton: No. The right hon. Gentleman has not taken the point. I do not think that the most ardent nationaliser would find his scheme prejudiced by putting off the vesting date until preliminary measures can be taken and the personalities chosen after they are sure that the Bill is going to become law. No one can be sure that that will happen now.
I now want to deal with the constitutional aspect. The Government, I may say, in these times, have not hesitated to upset the whole constitutional balance in order to get this Measure through. The sole argument is that the Government have a mandate for this Bill. It is only fair to examine that mandate. I think it is contained in "Let us Face the Future" under the heading of "Public ownership of Iron and Steel." There then occurs the following words:
Private monopoly has maintained high prices and kept inefficient high cost plant in existence. Only if public ownership replaces private monopoly can the industry become efficient.
Therefore, if the mandate exists it exists only on false promises and is based on false pretences because, first of all, the organisation of the iron and steel industry cannot be accurately described today in its present form as a private monopoly. Monopoly, if it is to earn the term, can only perform its evil functions by having control of its prices, by being in charge of its own development, and being able to prevent the entry of new companies. I do not think anyone would deny that the first is the main danger we have to guard against in all monopolies because when they own substantially the whole of the trade, they are enabled theoretically to charge what prices they wish.
Secondly, where a monopoly is entirely in charge of its own development then we can see the evils arising. The standard argument of the Government was that these large firms suppressed patents so as not to have inconvenient plant changes. That argument has been proved to be false by the Committee set up by the present Government. The iron and steel industry in its present form qualify for the description of a private monopoly because the price list in the industry is under the control of the Government, and we believe rightly so. The great cleavage is that we believe that the price list should be controlled by means of an expert board or the Ministry of Supply while the Government believes that it should be controlled by public ownership. The Government make a great mistake, for which the taxpayer will have to pay, by becoming responsible for the day-to-day administration and trading of this complex machine.
9.30 a.m.
It is well known that since the industry has been going at full capacity its prices are lower certainly than the American prices. The Government used to make the excuse that there was a subsidy, but even after subsidies have been removed, British steel prices are still strictly competitive. I do not want to go over the list again, but in April, 1949, when the subsidy stopped, British prices were below those of the United States in all the 12 principle categories of steel products except two. If the industry has maintained high prices, they are, to put it no higher, strictly competitive with world prices.
It has kept inefficient, high-cost, old plants in existence.
That depends very much on the purchasing power of money, the cost of construction and the general level of prices. It is characteristic of recent periods in industry that many plants which I should think are inefficient, are kept in existence, because the cost of replacement is so high as to make it uneconomic.
Only if public ownership replaces private monopoly can the industry become efficient.
I should have thought it is getting a little late in the day for Ministers still to claim that the steel industry is inefficient. At lunches and in their most expansive moments Ministers, including the Minister of Supply, have praised its record. "A splendid job" were the elegant words the right hon. Gentleman used. The record of the steel industry compares very favourably with that of any nationalised industry, not excluding civil aviation, to which the Government have set their hands. On all those matters the mandate fails. I very much doubt whether any impartial person would say the mandate existed at all, but if it did at any time, it certainly cannot be said to exist now. A long time has elapsed.
If this were so pressing, if the poor industries of Britain could not get on without the nationalisation of steel, why have the Government taken four and a half years to get round to it? They could not make up their minds among themselves that it should happen at all. Since it was decided, they have been searching about for a plan and they have not discovered it. They have taken refuge in the holding company technique. Their defence is that everything will be quite


the same. The people will be the same and the names of well-known firms will not be dropped. Nobody abroad will find out that Dorman Long, and Guest, Keen and Nettlefolds are really part of the Government. But, we know, foreigners are not so simple as all that, and the Minister ought to know it, because he has had a lot of experience of trading abroad, as I also have had.
So that if the mandate exists, it is certainly so stale as to require renewal by the people. I make that point quite fairly, that if the Minister of Supply rests his case on requiring a mandate, and if he thinks that mandate is still fresh enough to put an experiment of this kind into operation, he has little idea of what has been happening all these years. It will be at least common ground that the world has seldom been in a more dynamic state than it has during the last four years. There are times when I am wearing my Russian decorations, when I find it difficult to believe the kind of things that an hon. Member opposite would say about the Russia of his day. No expansive imagination is required to see how the world has changed.
If the iron and steel industry is one of the great precedents, one of the clarion calls of the Socialist Government's, "Let us Face the Future", why have the Government waited four and a half years to introduce this measure? And why have they no plans? Why is the answer, "Flexibility; it will be all right on the day"? I think it will be a disaster to this country if the Lords Amendment to this point is not accepted.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: After hearing the exposé of my right hon. Friend, I think that any sober or temperate man would see the reasonableness of what is here proposed. Can it really and truthfully be said that there was a mandate to nationalise this industry, in the form in which this Bill puts forward, at the time of the last election? There was reference then to the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. But what, in fact, did that mean to the ordinary elector? I concede that there was a clear mandate on coal. That had been discussed for many years, and was in the forefront of people's thoughts. There was, perhaps, a mandate for the Bank of England and,

maybe, for transport. And notice what failures two out of these have already shown themselves to be.
Nor was there any enthusiasm, I believe, at the time when we were first discussing the introduction of this Measure, and that enthusiasm has not grown. Was any mention made at Blackpool of the nationalisation of iron and steel? No. Every other excursion into the field of nationalisation was brought up and discussed. But iron and steel? No. Why was that? It was because those present were far happier trying to draw a veil over it. I have here a quotation from the "Daily Herald," of the 14th June this year, in which it is stated that at a meeting of the London and Essex District of the National Union of Railwaymen the secretary of the London District used these words—and very ominous words they are,
After 18 months of nationalisation money is being squandered here, there, and everywhere. At the top of British Railways at the present time jobs have been created, and superintendents in every department you may go into have increased.
Here is an industry which has been largely free from labour troubles in the past, which is almost unique in its record of freedom from labour troubles, and which has always had, in spite of what hon. Members say, a potential production greater than the potential demand, and which has, since the end of the war, when exports were so immensely important to us, always exceeded the target which the Government had set to be achieved.
There can be no justification, in the programme and the timetable which we are now aware of, for rushing this Measure through. If hon. Members opposite are sincere in their claims they can get a review and a reinforcement from the electorate in a very short time. But that is not what they are aiming at; they have adopted the Hitler method of retiring into a fastness, watching Europe—in our case, Britain—being reduced to ashes and to dust. They have adopted his motto, "If we are to leave power, we will leave as much industrial scorched earth behind us as we can." A près moi le deluge.

Mr. Eccles: The real point is whether the people, at the Election, ought to have another chance to express views about the nationalisation of iron and steel. I should not mind what date is in their


Lordship's Amendment, provided it went just over the day when we are to have an Election. We are not afraid of change in this country. In the course of our history we have experimented more rapidly and to greater depth than any other country. But it is also true that the British people are practical and they like to proceed as a result of experiments. That is why we do not have a civil war very often although we are prepared to make substantial changes now and again in our policy.
We have had considerable experience of nationalisation and it has not been a success. It is implicit in this Bill that it has not been a success because this is new-style nationalisation. The technique of the holding company is something very different from the National Coal Board, and is as unthought out as the Coal Bill when it first came to this House under the old process. I spent days in trying to help make the Bill workable. We failed, and now we have a different principle of construction. Taking the purely technical point of view this is not going to work unless a very great deal more thought is put into it.
What is going to be the relationship between companies and the Corporation? Nobody knows. Although they are to be independent and keep their own names, their duties and rights must be defined in a Bill; otherwise, it is merely a matter of the Corporation having branches of wholly owned subsidiaries, which it will treat as parts of itself. All that is left out of this Bill. Nothing defines how the publicly-owned companies are to keep a measure of independence. It is a badly drafted Bill and will not work. The ordinary people, after looking at nationalisation, have decided that the first principle in the previous Bill is not working satisfactorily and they have probably not yet grasped that iron and steel nationalisation is on a new principle.
9.45 a.m.
It would be expecting a lot from the ordinary voter to suppose that he has studied the difference between the two kinds of nationalisation, but it is the duty of the House to see that he gets a fair deal. It is because we are here to look after his interests that we ought to take great care. My opinion is that it is not the British way to proceed with more

nationalisation until we have made a better success of what we have done so far. This does not only affect our internal economy. I wish it were not so, but life is so arranged that the credit of a country depends not only on what it thinks of itself, but also upon what other countries think about us, and there can be no doubt that at the present time our credit is in considerable danger. We are having great difficulty in maintaining the pound, and our struggle for exports is affected by what other countries think about us. It takes two people to make an exchange rate, and there is no way of getting away from that.
The House must know, as a pure matter of fact, that nationalisation of the iron and steel industry is doing us damage abroad. We have a perfect right to nationalise the industry if we want to, but the question we have to consider is whether the damage abroad could not be allayed if we were to give the people another chance to look at this again after their experience with other nationalisation, and after what they have learned about this Bill. I am of the opinion that it is asking very little indeed. The vesting date is now May, 1950. It is only a matter of a few months—I do not know quite when the date of the election will be. It would at least give confidence that we were adopting our old traditional way of being practical, which I can assure Members opposite would have a considerable effect. In the hard times in which we live, wantonly to push this through, when it is only a question of a few months, and when we could raise our credit if we said we were going back to the people—after all, if this proposal were accepted and the party opposite won the election, they could change the vesting date by an amending Bill—

Mr. Palmer: Why is it that only a Labour or non-Conservative Government, is obliged to go back to the people?

Mr. Sargood: Have the by-elections no bearing on this?

Mr. Eccles: I will answer the second question first. It is now fairly clear that over 50 per cent. of the people are against the Labour Government, and if we were to take a poll on the nationalisation of this industry, I think the figure would be even higher. That has been proved by


the Gallup poll—although I do not like these polls very much. In reply to the second question, I say that the same argument could be used against a Conservative Government.

Mr. Palmer: Would they accept it?

Mr. Eccles: They would be very unwise not to. Five years is a very long time to run in the drama of politics, and the snapshot taken at an election may really be no opinion at all. I should be very ashamed of a Conservative Government which did not take into consideration the experience of the first three or four years of its Administration and the state of public opinion at the time it was going to pass a big Measure of this kind. Furthermore, I think it is bad politics. I do not think that pressing on with this Measure is going to win the party opposite any votes. It is going to lose them votes. I think it would be good electioneering tactics on the part of the party opposite to put the vesting date a month after the final date for the next election, or alternatively, to give us an assurance that we are going to have an election before May, 1950.

Mr. W. Ross: Does the hon. Member really mean that this is a long, long time, and that the policy enunciated the other week is not going to be carried out?

Mr. Eccles: I do not think that is relevant. We are talking about a series of experiments with a particular principle, which is nationalisation. The question is whether or not the hon. Member thinks that experience over four years is something which should be taken into consideration. I think it is. The hon. Member thinks not, and that we should go straight ahead, because five years ago there was a mandate to do something. He may be perfectly justified from the point of view of electioneering promises but I do not believe that is the way to govern a country well. I believe one governs a country by saying to the people, "This is what we intend to do by and large, but if experience shows that we have been stupid, we will not do some of the things." That is the only way in which this country has succeeded. If we are to be tied by a system of bargains struck by outside bodies at the time of each election that is going to tie

us down for five years, and all the flexibility will disappear completely.
I do not believe this Bill to be in the interests of the people. I dislike very much having to bring in the instance of what a foreigner thinks of us, and I only do so because this is so serious a moment. I would like, for instance, the talks in Washington to go well in September, because I cannot see anything except disaster if they do not. Those are things which it is very wrong for the Government not to take into consideration. If the Minister wishes to handicap the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he should go on with this Bill without putting in the Amendment. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have their own informtaion about the Americans, but it is my view that we would make the talks go more easily, if the people abroad knew that at our next General Election, this Measure was going to be voted on again.

Mr. Benn Levy: We have had two arguments so far presented from the opposite side. One each from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chippenham and the right hon. Member for Aldershot. The main argument of the hon. Member for Chippenham, as I understand it, was this. He said our credit was very seriously at stake just now and indeed it might be jeopardised if we proceed to fulfil the expectations of our own electorate.
That is what he said and nothing else. He said, in other words, once more, that we really should trim our sails according to the presumed desires of a foreign country. That is really what it amounted to and let us be perfectly clear about it. When he said it in the first place, it was disguised. He talked in a reasonable tone about exchange rates and the effect of other countries' opinion upon ourselves. But by the time he came to the end of his speech he was, of course, actually specifying Washington. And when he specifies Washington, he is not thinking of that vast body of American opinion which agrees with ourselves. He is not thinking of the C.I.O. He is not thinking of the voters who voted for President Truman. He is thinking of the secret allies, as he and his hon. Friends hope them to be, who are the obstructive force in America and on whom hon. Members opposite furtively rely to produce pressure


to further policies they themselves are unable to get past their own electorate in this country.
The recent economic debate revealed only too often that there was this secret desire on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that by blackmailing the Government obliquely, implicitly, vicariously with the disapproval of a foreign power they could influence the Government to proceed along lines which would please hon. Members opposite but which they were not sent to this House to proceed along.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) expatiated on a different aspect of the matter. After listening to him carefully I do not think any hon. Member was surprised that immediately he had concluded his speech he fled the Chamber. [An HON. MEMBER: "Has the hon. Member been here all night?"] Yes, all night. The right hon. Gentleman who left precipitately after making his speech, dealt with the theory of the mandate, and showed precisely the same sensitiveness that hon. Gentlemen always display about it. They find it inconvenient because the whole theory of a mandate does imply going to the electorate and saying what one means to do: hon. Gentlemen opposite are understandably averse from telling the electorate what they mean to do; and we have seen a recent example of this, when, the force of events and popular scepticism having caused them reluctantly to produce a programme, every promise in it is hedged around disengenuously with escape clauses. Therefore, it is quite understandable that the right hon. Gentleman should be inclined to dismiss, pooh-pooh and belittle a mandate as specific as we have given, and try to pretend we had made no such statement of the kind to justify us in nationalising the steel industry. His argument to show that was a curious one indeed. He said we have promised to nationalise the steel industry but the reasons we adduced for making the promise were faulty and, therefore, the promise was not valid.
That is a very curious argument. I do not propose to debate the validity of our reasons for making the promise, because it is an infinite subject. Whether the reasons given for deciding to do this were

good reasons or bad is not the point, It is precisely the same as if the right hon. Gentleman had said "I promise not to speak again during the course of this debate and the reason I give is that I am so powerful in dialectic and so devastating in debate that it would be unfair to the Minister of Supply." We might dissent and doubt the danger to the Minister, but the fact that he had produced the wrong reason would not invalidate the promise. Unless some less frivolous argument than these can be adduced, there is really no reason for the delaying over this amendment for another two minutes.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I think the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken will agree that what the American people think of us, and especially what they think of the Socialist Government is of the utmost importance. I am of the opinion that their confidence in this country was severely shaken when the Socialist Government was returned in 1945. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh—but I think that is so.

Mr. Ross: I was suggesting that for "America" in the hon. and gallant Member's point of view, we should read "British Toryism."

10.0 a.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: America is the greatest country for private enterprise in the world and that is anathema to the Socialist Party. It is a curious commentary therefore that, in order to pull their chestnuts out of the fire, the Socialist Government go to America, get a loan of £1,000,000,000 and then have Marshall Aid; and it is entirely due to America that they and the Dominion of Canada have the full employment for which they take all the credit but for which they deserve none.
I wish to take up a point in the speech of the Minister. When he was resisting the Amendment, he got very indignant, almost heated, about the fact that if the Amendment were carried, then the electors of the country would once more have to decide on whether iron and steel should be nationalised or not. I think that is correct.
The electorate may have given a mandate to the Socialist Party to nationalise iron and steel. As a matter of fact of


course, the Socialist Party have an immense majority in the House of Commons, but so far as votes are concerned, they were in a minority compared with the votes given to the Conservative and Liberal Parties. I at once concede that having a large majority, they can pass through any Measure they please, but the point is that during the 1945 election, the electors were fooled. They thought that nationalisation was going to be in the interests of the country and in their own interests; it was something—they thought—which would be of great benefit to the country and to themselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "So it is."] But now they have had much experience of nationalisation of various industries—coal, gas, electricity and transport—and they have learned a mighty good lesson from the results of the nationalisation of those industries.
What has happened as a result of nationalisation in this country is the same as in every foreign country. It has proved to be a failure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense!"] Why are the miners not satisfied? Does anybody suggest that they are? Is the country satisfied to pay some £5 a ton for its coal? Is that for the good of the industry and the consumer and the export trade?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. and gallant Member is now going very much wider than the point of when this particular Bill should come into operation.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I shall try to narrow the gauge. I was trying to point out that the country has had the advantage of the experience of nationalisation of various industries and they have learned a lesson from it—there is no question about that. It does make an enormous difference. They may have been given a mandate for nationalisation in the 1945 election, but there has been an immense rise in the price of coal—I hope this is in Order—and in the price of electricity, transport and gas.
Their experience leads them to believe that the continuation of nationalisation and the nationalisation of the iron and steel industry is not, as the Minister has said, in the interests of the country. In what way is it in the interests of the country? So far as I know the Minister has never put forward any reason for

saying that it is in the interests of the country. Who will benefit? We shall not get any greater efficiency in the industry. The Minister may disagree with me, but we shall not. It is a very important and diverse industry and it has many ramifications. I consider it is probably more difficult to nationalise than any other industry. I know little about the working of the industry, but I have a little common sense, and therefore I consider it quite right that the electorate should have another opportunity of expressing their opinion on whether they wish the industry to be nationalised or not.
I hope I have made out a case that the House of Lords have taken the right course, just as they did in the case of the Capital Punishment Bill. There has been no objection to what the House of Lords have done since a Socialist Government has governed this country. Now the Minister is endeavouring to find fault with their Lordships because after their experience of nationalised industries they have come to the conclusion that it is absolutely necessary that the public should have another opportunity of expressing their opinion on this Measure.
The Government have no plan to carry out this nationalisation. There was no plan for the nationalisation of the coal industry. There has already been an allusion to the remarks made by the Secretary of State for War who, in one of his very candid moments he told the country that the great mistake of the Socialist Party was that they had no properly thought-out plan—[Interruption.]—but that is what he did say, and hon. Members opposite cannot get away from it. Hon. Members opposite, especially below the Gangway have become a heckling party, but they cannot get away from the experience we have had of nationalisation. The Secretary of State for War said there was no plan for putting into operation the nationalisation of the industries of this country. The Minister today has said that there is no plan for the nationalisation of the iron and steel industry. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot, who knows all about the iron and steel industry, has pointed out that it would be impossible, between now and next May, for the organisation set up by the Minister to settle in, and, as we say in the Service, sling their hammocks


and get acquainted with what they ought to do. The Docks Emergency Committee had to find out what they had to do, but they did not do very much. So far as the iron and steel industry is concerned, it is the most complex in the country, and it will take some time for that industry to sling its hammock. That is only common sense. In the country's interests it is essential that this vesting date should be postponed.

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy), among other things, put forward a most extra-ordinary theory about mandates. He put forward something which I cannot believe he really means. His argument was that if a prospectus is produced, and even if its contents are "phoney," nevertheless those sponsoring it are justified in proceeding with the whole of the contents. We must assume that some people who voted for Labour did see this part of the prospectus dealing with iron and steel, and read it, but we have to take things as we find them. I have sat through all the Debates on this subject in this House, and we on this side have attacked the mandate steadily throughout on the grounds of fact. We presented our charges both in the House and in Committee, and we have never had any answer. The mandate has not been proved for one second, nor has the monopoly charge, the inefficiency charge, the charge of keeping high production plants in operation, and so on. Not a word has been said specifically in reply to the charges which we have made. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) has done the same thing today and, as on previous occasions, we have not had an answer. I cannot believe that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough believed what he said.

Mr. Levy: My argument was a very simple one. All I said was we could not properly ask to be absolved from specific promises, simply because the reason we gave for those promises have since become a matter of controversy.

Mr. Maclay: They are not matters of controversy. They have never been answered. Does the Minister state that the steel industry is inefficient? Does any hon. Member deny that it was possible for the iron and steel industry to put

high production plants out of production between 1934 and 1939.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: There are large sections of the industry which are today inefficient, and it is the firm view of the Government that the only way to get this industry 100 per cent. efficient will be to put it under public ownership.

10.15 a.m.

Mr. Maclay: That might possibly be an argument, but I was coming to the astonishing final paragraph in the mandate, which says that only if public ownership replaced private monopoly could the industry become efficient. What has already been done in the industry shows that is not right. The Minister cannot claim that any of the experiments in nationalisation so far have shown tangible results of the kind expected over the whole sphere. I agree that two or three years may not be time enough to judge, but before the Government go ahead and monkey with the key industry in the country, one expects them to look for a little evidence that labour relations have been solved, costs have been lowered, prices have been prevented from rising, or that something has happened which is worth doing.
There is none of that evidence, and any responsible Government tampering with the key industry of the country—nothing can function without steel—would proceed cautiously in these circumstances. The Amendment is an opportunity to give the country a chance to express its view on the matter. The mandate argument is a serious one, and I urge the hon. Member for Eton and Slough to treat his argument seriously. As to his argument that one could go ahead even if there was doubt, people have "landed in jug" in other spheres for doing that kind of thing.

Mr. Levy: If the hon. Member gave a promise and, subsequently, the reasons which led him to do so were repudiated by him, would he then feel justified in repudiating his own promise?

Mr. Maclay: Is a promise of this kind really made in our system of electorate? There were four lines in the Labour Party policy. Basing it on 1945 figures, the voting on the Steel Bill was, for the Government, 12,371,272 and, against the Government, 12,647,121. Those figures


are taken from the total votes cast in 1945 for the various parties represented in the House.

Mr. Palmer: Does the hon. Member believe in proportional representation?

Mr. Maclay: I was coming to that point. I do not expect to have full support from anywhere for the argument I am now going to make, because I do not know what the views of other people are. I do not consider proportional representation a suitable system for a democracy today. Theoretically, it is the only way of getting perfect representation in a democracy, but it has been proved not to produce stable Governments, and, above all, democracies must have stable Governments. On the constitutional issue, there are grave dangers in the case of a country which has not a written Constitution—a fact of which we are proud. We have an electoral system which can throw up a 200 majority in the House with only a tiny margin of electoral votes in favour. I am not referring to the figures which I have just given, because they related to steel nationalisation. In such a case, where there is no written Constitution, there is a very grave responsibility on the Government to administer their mandate with the greatest care.
I fully accept that the Government are entitled to govern—there is no question about that—but when it comes to taking a step which is the complete opposite of the economic structure of the country, they should be absolutely certain that they have much larger support in the country than they can prove at the moment. As a parallel to that, look at what has happened in two of the Scandinavian countries recently. There, they have Labour Governments with very narrow margins. The position is comparable to that here. Those Governments have taken a most responsible view of their position and have hesitated to do anything which is very difficult to reverse, as the nationalisation of steel would be, until they were certain that they had a very large section of the country behind them.
If we want our type of Parliamentary democracy to continue, we must have that sense of responsibility in a Government which finds itself in the position of the present Government, with a very large

majority in the House and a very small electoral majority in the country, and on this subject, none at all.

Mr. Palmer: Is the hon. Gentleman putting up a double standard—a certain standard of electoral support for a Conservative-Liberal Government, and another for a Labour Government?

Mr. Maclay: I do not think it can be construed that I said that. If it is just the ordinary question of assuming the responsibility of governing then this system is right, but not when it is a question of doing something which cannot be reversed, at least not over a short period. On that basis, I do not even feel completely happy about asking for this Amendment. Obviously, the minimum the Government can do is to accept these Amendments and allow the electorate to speak again. Even this question might not necessarily be settled by the result. It is conceivable the same result could be obtained again.

Mr. Chetwynd: We have just had put before us two entirely new constitutional theories. The first is that in the fourth and fifth years of a Labour Government we must not introduce anything which savours of controversy at all.

Mr. Maclay: That is an absolute travesty of anything I said.

Mr. Chetwynd: I am not referring to the hon. Gentleman. I will deal with him later. If we accept that theory it makes nonsense of any Government programme put before the electorate because we put our programme forward on the expectancy of a five-year period of office. If we have to put everything controversial in the first three years it places enormous difficulties in the way of carrying through that programme. We could have put this Bill forward in the first year. Would the Tory argument now ranged against this Bill then be brought against the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act? Or do the Tories accept the position that it is all right for them, when they are in office, to have the full value of the five years without having to say to the people that belief in the programme they were elected upon has been lost, and therefore the people must chose twice in one period of five years what they want them to do.
The onus of proof in this case is on the Opposition. We were elected to carry this out, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. Macmillan) knows that the result at Stockton was sufficient proof. I spoke in the steel works in my constituency on this issue. I was elected and he was not. I should have been very foolish to stand in a steel constituency without dealing with this issue, and if he chose to ignore it, it was his funeral and not mine.

Major Beamish: How did the hon. Gentleman advocate the nationalisation of the iron and steel industry without having the foggiest notion of the form that nationalisation would take?

Mr. Chetwynd: If the hon. Gentleman thinks we went into every detail in an Election lasting three weeks, he is making a tremendous mistake. The people had no doubt what was meant by the general plan, and they returned us to implement that plan. When the Opposition can show an unbroken series of by-election successes they will have more claim for asking us to believe that the people have changed their minds. Until they do that they must accept the programme we have laid down—that this Bill goes through in this Parliament. If they wish to upset it, they will have to advance their claims at the next General Election, and if they should unluckily be returned, it will be up to them to fulfil their promises. We are pledged to carry this out. We see no reason why we should not, and no reason why a hereditary, non-elected House of Lords should block our will. I hope that we shall resist the Lords on this Amendment.

Mr. P. Roberts: All the arguments of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the other side seem to focus on this point—that in their election pamphlets, and in some of their speeches, they advocated nationalisation and, therefore the result of the Election showed that the people who voted for them wanted to nationalise the iron and steel industry. I believe something quite different. I believe that a large number of misguided people who voted for them voted on general principles, and you cannot say that they were all in favour of the various suggestions put forward in Labour pamphlets.

Mr. Orbach: They were obviously against all your principles.

Mr. Roberts: I am trying to develop the argument which rests on the assumption that there has been a promise by hon. Members opposite, which I accept; but they go further and say that behind that promise they have a large backing of their supporters. I am denying that. I am saying that a great number of Socialists do not wish to see the iron and steel industry nationalised. Let me remind hon. Members opposite that Mr. Lincoln Evans, a man who has great standing in the industry, has said that he does not desire to see political controversy in the industry at this time. I put it no higher than that. My argument is that although hon. Members admittedly have made a promise, they are not entitled to say that all their supporters are in favour of it. They brought forward one scheme which became completely unworkable. The hon. Member who has just spoken (Mr. Chetwynd) referred to the possibility of the Bill having been brought in in the first year. There was an attempt to bring in the Bill in the second year, which was an abysmal failure, so I doubt whether it would have been practicable to do it in the first year.
After a great deal of discussion in this House, and in the country, I believe that a large number of people now think that this suggestion of steel nationalisation is a mistake. If a referendum were taken at this time I am convinced that there would be a large number of people who would not wish to see steel nationalised, and a number of these people might well be Socialists. The Minister referred to this Bill as a reform. I should have said it was much more like a horrible disaster. He said that if the wishes of another place were carried out, it would mean that the Bill could not be implemented for 15 months after the date of the Election. Is that such a bad thing? It is admitted that a plan at the present moment is impracticable, and he also said it would need a very long time to produce a scheme to work easily. I should have thought it would be a very good thing indeed to put it off for another 15 months, even if hon. Members opposite are returned to power after the next General Election.
10.30 a.m.
I also wish to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member


for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) with respect to the position of the country at present, which, I should have said, makes it imperative not to experiment with this industry at this stage—an industry whose products are responsible for 40 per cent. of our total exports. What about labour relations? The recently published figures of the Ministry of Labour comparing the coal industry and the steel industry over the last two years, show that the average number of days lost per 1,000 men was 920 in the coal industry but only 57 per 1,000 in the steel industry. Why, then, nationalise the iron and steel industry and bring to it all these apparently attendant labour troubles? The Minister himself said that anything damaging to the iron and steel industry is damaging to industry as a whole—one of the few enlightened statements he has made in this Debate.
There are considerable dangers from centralisation under the powers of the Minister—powers for which, as far as we can make out, he will not be responsible to Parliament. These powers which he is taking are extremely dangerous. We have seen what has happened in the coal industry, the gas industry, electricity and transport. When the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) suggested that the prices of those commodities had gone up, I thought the Minister shook his head. Well, I can assure him that the price of coal has gone up; and I can equally assure him that, particularly in the North-East, the price of gas has gone up.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Gentleman must not go into details about other nationalised industries.

Mr. Roberts: I will not continue to introduce details, but the point I am trying to make is that, so far, nationalisation has not proved very successful or very economical. It becomes even more clear as we go through the Bill that the Minister will centralise control in Whitehall. We hear a good deal about decentralisation; we have even had a Clause referring to decentralisation; yet behind this Bill we see the Minister with his staffs, and I am regretfully forced to the conclusion that we shall see the iron and steel industry, which has been built up on local practice and local knowledge, centralised under the Minister.
I am convinced that as a result of this Bill, the consumer will suffer, so that it would be to the good if we could put off the coming into operation of this Bill until after the General Election, in order that the consumer can make his vote really felt. When I was at Cambridge, learning economics, my teacher—incidentally, a Socialist—said that when the consumer buys something, he casts his vote and in that way could influence the management of the industry whose produce he is buying. Under nationalisation as we have seen it, no longer will the customer be able to cast his vote; the industry will be a monopoly, the direction of which will be controlled by the Minister. I, therefore, maintain that at this time neither the industry itself, nor the consumer, nor the taxpayer wish to see this Bill go on to the Statute Book. Let it be put off until the General Election has been decided, in which case I am certain that we shall not see this Bill on the Statute Book at all.

Mr. W. T. Williams: When hon. Members opposite take it upon themselves to determine what the country is thinking and what the Government should do, and, in particular, what the country needs, it would seem that they are being presumptuous. Only one thing has emerged from their speeches: that the Tories do not want steel to be nationalised. The arguments with which they have supported that thesis have varied from confusion to deliberate misrepresentation. In earlier portions of the Debate the Tories have been most anxious that the industry shall not be confused, shall know exactly where it stands, and that the sword of Damocles hanging over its head shall be removed. Now, we are informed, all they want is that the sword of Damocles should take a little longer to fall—a month, three months, or six months. They say this in the vain hope of being returned at the next General Election, when they will throw the whole thing out, or, the hope that if we should be returned, the Government will have to go again through this long and uncertain business of passing this Bill into law.

Hon. Members: They would not.

Mr. G. Thomas: Oh, yes they would.

Mr. Williams: Three main arguments have been used in the Debate. The first


is that we ought not to experiment with a key industry, because we are in a time of economic crisis. It is clear that hon. Members opposite have quickly forgotten that we have been in a time of economic crisis ever since this Government came into power. [Laughter.] It is also clear from that interruption, that the Tories are being characteristically dishonest in attempting to father that crisis upon us. Before we came into power, a letter was written by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) to Mr. Morgenthau, Secretary to the United States Treasury, describing Britain as a bankrupt country. That was the inheritance that we received. I dare say that hon. Members opposite will sneer when I say that the way this Government have tackled that crisis and, in part, the Government's policy of nationalisation, have prevented the crisis breaking in tragedy about our heads.
We have heard spurious arguments about the results of nationalisation, particularly of coal. I was brought up in the mining valleys and I can say from my own experience that, so far from the Tories being in a position to make cheap sneers, if the coal mines had not been nationalised, we should not be having coal at £5 per ton, but hardly a ton of coal at all. That being so, I suggest that if hon. Members opposite are as anxious as they profess themselves to be, in particular when they are talking about reductions in Income Tax, to re-establish our economy they should give credit where credit is due. Credit is due to this Government for the way in which, by their policy, which has been consistent, faithful to their promises and wise, they have averted tragedy that has overwhelmed many other countries in Europe which have also received Marshall Aid. Italy, of course, is a striking example.
The other argument which has been used frequently is that after four years, this Government have no mandate to pursue promises and policies that they declared they would pursue when they were first elected. That comes strangely from the lips of people who belong to a party who, 10 years after their mandate had elapsed, when they had been defeated frequently at by-elections, were still maintaining that they had the right to govern,

and to govern according to the decisions of the Government of that time.
So far from allowing ourselves to be misled, for instance, by an argument such as that of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. D. Eccles) that it is essential that the Government should govern with an eye not on their mandate but on changed circumstances, I would suggest that it is quite frankly impertinence for hon. Members opposite to arrogate to themselves the right to determine in what circumstances we should change our mandate. It is the Government who have to determine whether or not they are entitled to regard circumstances as so changed as to justify them in breaking their promises. We do not, as a practice, on this side of the House, break promises; we leave that to those specialists in government.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: If that is so, could the hon. Gentleman explain why the Government have not set up a Ministry of Housing, which was promised far more explicitly?

Mr. Williams: If I may deviate to answer that question, the hon. Member for Chippenham said that the Government are entitled, in changed circumstances, to change their point of view with regard to their mandate. The Labour Party, before they were elected to power in this country, promised that they would build houses. They said they would be prepared, if necessary, to establish a Ministry of Housing. The Government are of opinion that they have fulfilled their pledge to build houses without the establishment of a Ministry of Housing, and of all people, the Tories should be the last to criticise the Government's housing policy.
The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) made great play with the fact that the Government were not entitled to attempt to do anything with the steel industry because, he said, the arguments that Ministers and Government spokesmen have used for the nationalisation of steel do not apply as the industry is at present organised. I found that argument difficult to follow because the right hon. Gentleman is the spokesman of the party which believes in setting the people free. However, he did say that in this matter he believed in controls, and that he believed it was essential that the Government


should maintain their control over the steel industry. It would seem to me that, in the interests of justice as well as of economic stability, it is more proper and right that the Government should take over finally, completely and absolutely for their own purposes the steel industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Their own purposes."] It is extraordinary that hon. Gentlemen opposite should jump upon every phrase without giving one an opportunity even to amplify it.
10.45 a.m.
Clearly, the purposes of this Government are to govern the country wisely and well, and one of the things that they plan to do is to maintain full employment. It is surely a proper and reasonable purpose of the Government to wish to nationalise the steel industry for their purposes if their purposes are for the good of the country, which I believe them to be. In those circumstances, surely it is right and proper and just, in the interests of justice and economic planning that the Government should finally and absolutely take over the steel industry for the purposes that have been mentioned, in order that the country and the industry may know where they stand and not be left to the uncertainty of not knowing when, if at any time, the controls would be taken off, as almost certainly they would be taken off if a Tory Government were returned to power.
All these things, then, seem to me to suggest that the Government are perfectly entitled to maintain, in the first instance, that they have a mandate and a right, after four years of government, to determine the terms of their mandate. They have the right to fling back in the teeth of the right hon. Member for Aldershot that there was a time, and there may quite easily be a time again, when the steel industry will not be organised as it is at present organised. There can be no doubt, certainly from the point of view of people who have lived, not among steel-owners, but among steelworkers, that the claim made by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that there has been no trouble in the industry, that it has had no disputes for many years, and that the industry has been proficient for many years, is a hollow claim.

Mr. H. Fraser: Nonsense.

Mr. Williams: It is not nonsense. I know it to be true, and I know it to be true from my own experience that during the inter-war years there were many—not hundreds, but thousands—of people in the steel industry who would take home something like 36s. or 38s. a week and who dared not complain. That is the reason why there have been no disputes in the industry; they dared not complain because they knew perfectly well that if they complained about 38s. they would soon be getting 26s. unemployment relief—

Mr. G. Thomas: Fifteen shillings.

Mr. Williams: —and that hundreds of thousands of people would be waiting to take their places.
I suggest, therefore, that before hon. Gentlemen opposite pursue an argument that is so clearly hollow, it would be good for them to remember that steel nationalisation is needed for the fulfilment of the Government's purposes. No argument that has been brought forward from the other side of the House is effective. On the other hand—and this is what should weigh very heavily with people who have proved themselves, at least since they have been out of office, so deeply concerned about the poor and the humble—it is important that the workers of the steel industry should at least have a right to speak in this matter, and with no uncertain voice. It is silly and blind of hon. Members opposite to pretend that they can speak with authority about the wishes of the steelworkers and to quote so-called facts and figures; statistics can be quite easily made to lie. There can be no doubt that the workers in the industry wish for nationalisation and are working now as hard as they are doing, because they believe that steel will be nationalised.
One does not expect from hon. Members opposite that they will concede fact, if fact conflicts with their theories. If steel is not now nationalised, although it may not be a living issue among the electorate, the disappointment will be so intense, in particular in steel-working areas, that there will be industrial unrest. I am certain that before hon. Members opposite can take it upon themselves to criticise industrial relations within the nationalised industries, they had better first ask themselves whether they believe that the problems in the nationalised industries


would have been less if they were not nationalised, but under Tory control.

Brigadier Rayner: The real purpose of the Amendment is to give the electorate time to realise that they have been led up the garden path. The hon. Member for South Hammersmith (Mr. W. T. Williams) has obviously not realised that the electorate of this country are inclined to be progressive rather than otherwise and that this regimentation of one industry after another by the Socialist Government is entirely reactionary. Regimentation is a principle of savagery. Two thousand years ago, and even now in Central Africa, people had their whole lives regimented from birth to death by their tribal leaders and the whole process of civilisation down the ages has been the freeing of man from the control of men. This Bill is another deplorable example of Government regimentation. Some hon. Members will have been to Stonehenge and seen the large stones which were rolled across the mountains of Wales and through the Severn Valley on hunks of wood by thousands of men under the direction of the Druids. That was the first example of nationalised transport. This Measure, which we have discussed through the watches of the night, is another example of reactionary regimentation and this Amendment gives the electorate a chance to think again.

Mr. Nigel Birch: I wish to refer back to what was said by the hon. Member for South Hammersmith (Mr. W. T. Williams). He said that the object of the Amendment was to make hon. Members opposite go through the whole of this process again. Of course, that is not the object; the object is to ensure that the people—the whole people, not only steelworkers—shall pronounce whether they want this Bill or not. That is the simple issue and the whole process would not be gone through again. He went on to say that nationalisation was the only thing which stood between us and the crisis.

Mr. W. T. Williams: I did not say that. I said that the crisis was here before we came to power and that the Government's wise policy, including nationalisation, had prevented the economic collapse which afflicted the rest of Europe afflicting us also. Nationalisation played an important part in that.

Mr. Birch: I think the hon. Member is qualifying for a job on the Board. I would remind him that the effect of nationalisation has been to make it far harder for us. He might have given credit for about £2,000 million of dollars which I think have had a larger share in staving off the crisis. He talked about full employment, but we shall not keep full employment in this country unless we can keep down our costs. If we have no reserves that is the only possible hope. Yet it is absolutely certain that by this Bill we shall put up our costs. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) made the most extraordinary statement that the onus of proof in regard to this Bill rested upon hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. That is a staggering statement to make.

Mr. Chetwynd: I said that the onus of proof at the next General Election was on the Opposition to prove that the electorate did not want the Bill, as the electorate had proved at the last Election that they wanted it.

Mr. Birch: The onus of proof that the Bill is a good one rests upon those who bring in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is justifying this Bill as an example of the unlimited mandate—that because one has something in one's original Election programme one has to carry it out whatever happens.
The one thing which was, perhaps, the most important feature of the contents of "Let Us Face The Future" and in almost every speech made by hon. Gentlemen opposite was "good relations with Russia." Given the circumstances, given the things that have happened, if the hon. Gentleman's argument had been pursued to its logical conclusion we should have had to truckle to Russia in order to preserve that good relationship, assuming that no attention was to be paid to changed circumstances. So far as a Ministry of Housing is concerned, however, the circumstances have not changed. They were the same on the day after the Election as on the day before the Election, and it was as sensible or as little sensible to set up a Ministry of Housing then as it is now. I have given instances in which hon. Gentlemen opposite have not carried out their mandate. They were probably right in not doing so in regard to a Ministry of Housing; they were certainly right so far as truckling to


Russia is concerned. They have departed from their mandate because the circumstances have not allowed them to follow it; they were wiser in their second thoughts than in their first thoughts.
The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy), who I think has deserted the stricken scene, took my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham very much to task, and said, becoming more British than the British, that my hon. Friend had said that we were to trim our sails to the presumed desire of a foreign State. I do not think that anyone is more unhappy than are we on this side of the House that our country is not independent. But why is it not independent? The policy pursued by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite has made it absolutely certain that we shall be permanently—

Mr. Frederick Lee: On a point of Order. In referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough the hon. Member described him as "becoming more British than the British." May we be told what was meant by that observation about a man who did a remarkable job of work during the war?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): I never presume to understand what hon. Gentlemen mean.

Mr. G. Thomas: Further to that point of Order. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough as "becoming more British than the British." We know what he meant by that offensive reference, and he ought at least to have the decency to withdraw it.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Birch: I should have thought it was a compliment.

Mr. Beswick: Would the hon. Member for Flint at least explain exactly what he meant by that remark?

Mr. Birch: The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] If hon. Members opposite think that that remark of mine was offensive I will certainly withdraw it.
The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees said that no arguments whatever had

been put up against the Bill, but the real point about the Measure is that the onus of proof lies upon the Government. They have never been able to tell us how they would organise the industry, how costs and prices would be reduced, or how they would constitute their board. They have no idea whatever. The simple answer throughout has been, "Don't know." The case is not documented. They are not wise, but foolish, after the event in view of what has happened in other nationalised industries. I have great difficulty in believing that the Minister, who is an intelligent man who made a lot of money in his day and paid the losses on "Tribune," does not know.
11.0 a.m.
As for this argument which was put up, to his discredit, by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently, and by the hon. Member for South Hammersmith a few minutes ago, that people in the steel industry are working because they think that the industry is to be nationalised, that seems to me to be the most fantastic argument of the lot. If the Government really believe that, why do they not prolong the delicious agony? It is perfectly clear that when an industry is nationalised there is no stimulus at all. If it is really this which is making people work, then presumably the longer the state of suspense goes on the better they will work.
The argument advanced by hon. Gentleman opposite is very weak. I do not think that they honestly believe it. I think that this is a crazy Bill. When Lord Ammon described the Front Bench opposite as crazy he meant, I suppose, weak and foolish and not very clear in their own minds. There is something more than that in this Bill. It is wicked to bring this Bill in at this time not thought out, undocumented, with no answers to any of the real problems, and supported by a lot of arguments which would not stand up in a small girls' school.

Mr. Spearman: Hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to be rather sensitive on the subject of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy). I hope that they will not object if I criticise some of his speech. During that speech he talked about his power of dialectic. I am no


judge of that, but I think that his speech today was more noted for its rhetoric than for its realism, because he chose to turn upon my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) and make a complete travesty of what he said.
He said that the whole of that speech was devoted to the bad effect the passing of this Bill would have on the talks at Washington, whereas in fact nearly the whole of my hon. Friend's speech was devoted to presenting very good reasons why it would be very much wiser to defer putting this Bill into action until after the people had had a chance of voting upon it. My hon. Friend did say, at the end, that he did not think that this would help those very important talks at Washington. With that I think we could all agree.
I have been to America a good many times recently and I have had the opportunity to talk with many of the Administration and many Congressmen. While I am quite certain that they do not mean to interfere in the political life of this country—and I think very clear evidence of that is the fact that they have so generously subscribed to a nation whose economy at the present time they must largely disapprove of—I am also equally sure that, having acted with such generosity for so long, they are now beginning to think that the time has come when they cannot go on paying out money to a country unless good use will be made of that money.
It seems to me that the rejection of this Amendment is a fairly clear evidence that hon. Members opposite have not got much confidence in Britain's belief in Labour. I would say that if the introduction of this Bill was an act of unwisdom, the refusal to accept this Amendment was an act of fanaticism. I will try to prove why I think that. On this side of the House we consider this particular nationalisation project much the most damaging to the economy of the country of any of the projects put forward by this Government, because it directly implicates the Government of this country in the running of a vital industry which is in direct competition with the industries of other countries.
I think it is for that reason that so many people in this country who are not of my party have opposed nationalisation

of steel and are most apprehensive about it, even though they have not opposed the other nationalisation projects. In fact, I would go further and hazard the guess that many thoughtful Members on the other side—and with my usual politeness I am determined to believe that there are thoughtful Members opposite—would agree that nationalisation of steel was not going to increase output in the immediate future or to lower prices. I think they would agree that it was done partly in order to lay long-term plans to produce more steel than was immediately economically desirable. That might be very wise under one set of conditions, but most unwise under the conditions of today when our resources are so limited that they must only be used for immediate purposes.
There are many reasons why hon. Members opposite are so intent on this, but I think many of them would agree that their real reason is a political one, which is to avoid a split in their own party and to avoid any accusation that Socialism is only a fair weather policy which could not take on the nationalisation of steel in difficult times. They thought that this Measure, although not economically wise, could be carried owing to the wealth of the country.
I suggest that hon. Members opposite now mainly realise two things. First, they realise the immense difference between this country, which is dependent to a degree that no other great nation has ever been dependent before upon food and raw materials coming from abroad, and self-contained countries like France, America or Russia which can undertake projects with impunity that would for us be disastrous. I believe that the major blunder this Government made was in not realising that fact. Secondly, I assume that what I might call the "Mayhew phase" is over; they no longer believe that all Britain's economic difficulties are over, as the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said in New York a few months ago, and when the Minister said that the only mistake his colleague made was to blurt out the truth at the wrong moment.
We have had constant complacent assertions from hon. Members opposite, and from the Government Front Bench. All that is a thing of the past, or is it? Perhaps I attribute too much thoughtfulness


and capability to hon. Members opposite when I say that they realise these things now. It is perhaps not surprising that the Government who the week before last produced that disastrous statement showing no positive policy at all for dealing with the dollar crisis—the Government who so mishandled the dock situation—should be rushing us into this disastrous experiment which could so easily and with so little cost to themselves be put off for a few months.
It is indeed disturbing that this country should be in the hands of a set of people who are being driven in this disastrous way. It may be that it is due to their physical exhaustion, for which we can sympathise with them; or it may be that it is due to their incapacity to stand up to the strain, in which case it is indeed a very tragic outlook for this country that, at this particular moment in its history, it should be governed by these men.

Mr. Erroll: When introducing his rejection of this Amendment, the Minister referred to the Bill as a Measure of vital importance, and with that we are all very much agreed. I thought he was less than fair, however, when he referred to our "irresponsible action" in opposing his proposed disagreement with the Lords Amendment. We are feeling very far from irresponsible in this matter; we feel that this is the most important matter in the whole Bill. We resent very much the charge that we are behaving irresponsibly in begging to differ from the Minister and even from the hon. Member for South Hammersmith (Mr. W. T. Williams), whose pretty lecturing of us we all appreciated very much on this side of the House.
The Minister asked why the electorate should have to vote twice on this issue. Surely it would be an act of very great statesmanship if they were given the opportunity of voting a second time. What votes will the Government gain at the next election through having forced the Steel Bill through at the tail end of this Parliament? What will they gain from the point of view of time?—only a matter of a month, or perhaps two months, in the passing into action of a Measure which has been delayed for four years. The loss of time would be negligible. But if they have confidence

in themselves the advantage would be immense because they would then show that they were prepared to put this matter to the country once again when the country was more fully aware of all that was involved.
Of course, we know why they are not prepared to do that. It is because, despite the by-election results, in which they take a remarkable pride—[Laughter.] I notice hon. Members opposite always giggle whenever it is suggested that we might win the next General Election. Perhaps they will remember that cheap giggling after the results have been declared; it may not go so well with them, despite their apparent chain of successes in by-elections. There are other changes at work behind the façade of those successes.
The fact is that, if the Government were returned at the next General Election they would be able to proceed with their implementation of this Measure knowing that they had been refreshed with the confidence of the people, whereas, at the present time, if they are determined to pursue the policy which they have enunciated, they will go ahead in an uneasy frame of mind, despite their outward assurance, trying hurriedly to implement a Measure which they know will be utterly rejected if they are not returned at the next General Election. They cannot, therefore, proceed with this Measure for the nationalisation of steel on a really sound basis. There must be an atmosphere of hurry and panic and uncertainty. By delaying a few months, as this Amendment would provide, they would be able, if they are successful at the next Election, to proceed at the right pace for the nationalisation of the industry, instead of at the hurried pace which will be inevitable at the moment.
If I have taken down his words correctly, the Minister said that the Government intend to vest the industry as soon as possible after the passing of the Act. I submit that it will be impossible to set up the Corporation as quickly as he envisaged. In all the nationalisation Acts so far, we have seen the controlling body set up far too quickly after the passing of the Act. It is quite obvious now that the National Coal Board came into being too soon and that the vesting of the ownership of the


mines in the Coal Board on 1st January, 1947, was too soon. If it had been 1st April it is generally agreed that that would have given the Coal Board a much better chance to set up its headquarters organisation. The same may be said of the Electricity Authority. On the evidence of the members of the Authority themselves, they were not given sufficient time to work out their organisation before they were saddled with the day-to-day task of administering the industry.

Mr. Palmer: Mr. Palmer indicated dissent.

Mr. Erroll: The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Palmer) can never see evidence which does not suit him. If I went into detail on the matter I should be ruled out of Order, but I should be very glad to do so, were that allowed.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. Palmer: The hon. Gentleman has introduced the matter of the British Electricity Authority. I challenge him—and I hope he will take the challenge seriously, because he has made this statement before—to produce the evidence for the remark he has just made, now or on some occasion.

Mr. Erroll: I shall be very glad to do so whenever I have the occasion. I should have difficulty now in doing so if I am to keep within the Rules of Order. Not only will the Corporation have very great difficulty in assimilating its functions after vesting takes place as soon as the Government intend, but also the Minister will have very great difficulty in getting men to join the Corporation, because of the present uncertainty. If invitations are sent out now to join it, senior executives and trade union leaders—because doubtless they will be invited as well—will have to decide whether or not to show their colours now in advance of the General Election, and if men who do not favour nationalisation reject the invitations to join the Corporation and a Labour Government are returned at the next General Election, those men will be marked men, known to be against nationalisation, and, therefore, they will have no chance in the industry in the future.
I submit that it is placing an impossible choice on the leaders of the industry, that they should be invited to join the Corporation before the result of the next General Election is known. It is well

known that feelers are already going out to leaders of the industry, and I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is full of hope in the matter himself. I am sure he would make a very worthy member of the Corporation, and would work as hard in it as he has worked in the Government.

Mr. Attewell: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He knows how closely I have been following what he has been saying. I wonder, seeing that he is now advising the House of the great difficulties the Government will have in selecting the right personnel for the Corporation, if the hon. Gentleman will explain why he supported the previous Lords Amendment.

Mr. Erroll: Without wishing to digress too far, I will answer that easily. The whole object of that Amendment was to prevent the assumption of executive responsibility, which has been such an embarrassment of the other nationalised industries, and to make sure that the Corporation should have time to work out detailed plans before being saddled with day-to-day responsibility.
I am trying to deal with the Minister's case, because he made many points of great interest. He made a special statement for the benefit of the industry. It was interesting to listen to that special statement, because it was a reiteration of what is in the Bill, and, as I heard him, I understood that he was just continuing this shabby vendetta against the directors of the iron and steel industry. These Clauses are a part of that vendetta. There is not the slightest evidence that any member of any board or anyone else in the industry intends to behave as is envisaged by these repulsive Clauses. This was a cheap and shabby attack on those fine men, and another thinly veiled warning to them. When we sought by Amendments at an earlier stage to safeguard these men, we were told by the Minister that they knew already pretty well what was in the Bill, and that they did not need our Amendments. Now, when there is an opportunity to score off them, they are once again hounded, dragooned, and warned.
The Minister protested very laudably that the industry should be 100 per cent. efficient. That sounds very good as a platform point. What, however, does the right hon. Gentleman mean exactly by


100 per cent. efficiency? Does he mean that the whole industry should have spent less in the last three or five years, or that its plant of those years should be replenished? Or does he mean what we understand by 100 per cent. efficiency, that the plant of the whole industry should be turned over regularly so that plant which is obsolete shall be replaced only when its useful life has been past?
If the Minister means by 100 per cent. efficiency that the industry is suddenly to be equipped with completely up-to-date plant, it is going to be a very expensive industry indeed, with its costs way above world prices. The only way to have a competitive steel industry is by making use of our plant, both new and old. I hope we shall not fall into any misunderstanding about over-modernising the industry. Part of the plant must be obsolescent, and it should be replaced only when it is fully obsolete. It does not mean that if plant is not the most modern it results in inefficiency, which Members opposite seem to think. What plans have the Government for this industry?

Mr. Speaker: This Amendment deals with the date and not with plans.

Mr. Erroll: I agree that it may seem rather wide of the subject. But as the Minister referred to plans in his opening speech, I felt it would be in Order for me to reply to that point. Perhaps I may remain in Order by referring to what he said, and then pass on, because the Minister did state that he intended through the immediate operations of the Corporation to plan the resources of the industry.
I should like to know how they are going to plan the resources. Why is it so necessary to do it right away? The fact is that this is not a Bill to nationalise the iron and steel industry, but a Bill to enable the State to enter into competition in the whole field of private industry. In that respect it is a fraud on the electorate, who should be given another chance to vote on the matter. A few more months will not matter. There has been plenty of delay already while Ministers were making up their minds what they would do with the industry.

Mr. H. Macmillan: This important series of Amendments, upon which the

Acting-Leader of the House indicated that we might soon reach a decision and then have a temporary break in our labours, have at least had one agreeable result. After the long slumberings of the night, with very few Members supporting the Government adding anything to our Debates, some have returned and have spoken on this series of Amendments. I do not complain of that; I welcome it. But they have had the advantage, which we have not had, of refreshment and sleep. I thought it was a little ungenerous of the hon. Member who was educated at Repton but, alas, represents Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) to reprove my right hon. Friend for having left the Chamber after having spoken. It is within the recollection of the House that my right hon. Friend has been in his place and has conducted a leading part for more than 20 hours. I thought that when the hon. Member used the words "precipitated defeat" it was an, ungenerous and offensive observation.

Mr. Levy: I did not use those words I said "precipitatedly fled." I reassure the right hon. Gentleman, who was not in his place, that I certainly did not criticise him for not waiting for the bouquets. I think it was very sensible of him. I am sorry to have interrupted the right hon. Gentleman, because we enjoy him, especially in his more pompous moments.

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Member has been offensive once more. My right hon. Friend asked me to apologise to the House for his temporary absence for a wash and a shave. I think that those who are more fortunately placed ought to be a little more generous.
The hon. Member felt under a promise from which he could not get absolution. He said that the promise had been made to the electors that the steel industry would be nationalised, and he felt that he could not, in conformity with his conscience, be absolved from that promise. But I do not think that the nation will worry very much if it is given a second chance; if it wants it can confirm the decision, or if not it will welcome the opportunity of a second chance. There are other matters in which the hon. Member's conscience was not so careful. All sorts of things were contained in this


document. Perhaps I might read him two:
There should be a Ministry of Housing and Planning combining the housing powers of the Ministry of Health with the planning powers of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning.
Has the hon. Member's conscience been bleeding all those four years? I have not been aware of the terrible feeling in the party opposite that they were guilty of a terrible deceit on the electors because they did not carry out this reform. I have no doubt that they were, however, and the wiser ones who studied the matter with us in the Coalition Government probably reached the view that the instrument available was quite satisfactory. Anyway, it was an instrument which they have misused just as much as they would have misused the new one.
I want to call attention to another promise. The Foreign Secretary is not with us, for reasons which we deplore. Here is another promise:
We must consolidate in peace the great wartime association of the British Commonwealth with the United States of America and the U.S.S.R. Let it not be forgotten that in the years leading up to the war the Tories were so scared of Russia that they missed a chance to establish a partnership which might well have prevented the war.
Who is scared of Russia now? Who attacks Russia every day now? Who says that Mr. Molotov has double-crossed him? The Foreign Secretary. Who is scared? Who looses the most violent anti-Soviet propaganda from those benches? The present Government. There are many other sins in which the hon. Member for Eton and Slough is equally guilty.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) on his speech. I would remind him of one thing. He made the nationalisation of iron and steel a major plank in his campaign in 1945.

Mr. Chetwynd: One of the most important.

11.30 a.m.

Mr. Macmillan: There were certainly others which I observed, in relation to which the Secretary of State for War in the course of the campaign made remarks, most of which were a vitriolic personal attack on me and my wife, which, I think, did him a bit of harm.

Let me tell the hon. Member this. He is young in this experience. Of course, he has a perfect right to crow over his defeat of me. I have fought six elections in Stockton. He has fought one. I have won three and lost three. I will make him a bet that when he has fought six his average will not be better than mine.

Mr. Chetwynd: When I am the right hon. Gentleman's age perhaps I shall be able to take him on.

Mr. Macmillan: I shall expect the hon. Gentleman to pay it to my heirs and successors.
I now come to another election hero who has served long enough no longer to enjoy any immunity, the hon. Member for South Hammersmith (Mr. W. T. Williams). When he made his maiden speech we received it with the grace called for. Now he makes rather elaborate lectures to us, and we are prompt to answer them. The only argument which I could understand in the doctrine which he elaborated was that the Tory Party had been guilty of carrying on a Government for 10 years from 1935 to 1945 without refreshing itself by going to the people. It may have escaped his notice—I do not know how he was employed during that time—that quite a lot of events took place during those years.
If he says that it is a serious charge against the Government of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) was the head and of which distinguished Members on the Front Bench opposite were members that we passed an Act to prolong Parliament from 1939 to the end of the war, I do not think that it is one which this House will sustain, and it will certainly not be sustained by right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite who were parties to the whole of that legislation. That was the only real point he made, and it was a bad one. Mr. Disraeli once said of a foreign gentleman that he had only one idea and that was wrong. That might be said of the hon. Member for South Hammersmith. In the fluctuation of opinion of which I warned the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees it may easily be that South Hammersmith will be one of the first victims. The hon. Member had a very narrow margin.
The right hon. Gentleman who, some hours ago, asked us to disagree with the


Lords in these Amendments did not quite do himself justice, but he has had a very heavy night and I quite understand his reluctance to deploy a very long or carefully prepared argument. He produced only two arguments. He made what seemed to be a rather mysterious threat to members of the steel industry. He said, "Remember that if the Bill has to be brought in a second time it will contain all these Clauses under which, if you do not watch them carefully, you may suffer." That was not a great act of science and statesmanship. If the new Bill did not contain exactly those Clauses, it could not be passed under the Parliament Act. If there was any change it could not be passed under either the old or the new Parliament Act. We were even going to change the Constitution for the purpose of the elaborate arrangements made between the two sections of the Government. The Bill must contain the same Clauses, so there was not very much in that.
Then—it probably slipped out because he was rather alarmed at doing something which rather amounted to blackmail of the people concerned—he said that they might not know the law. The gentlemen who preside over the great industries possess the means of finding out the law. They have professional advisers who know the law. It is within their competence to inform themselves of a fairly simple thing like the Parliament Act procedure. Though I am sure that they would be grateful for the warning, I do not think it is one which would really make much effect upon their judgment because they would not be conscious of it.
His next argument was that my noble Friend the leader of the Conservative Party in another place had been guilty of a great act of irresponsibility in advising another place to oppose these Amendments. There are all sort of views which might be held upon this main problem, which is whether it is to be settled now or whether, so near to an Election, there is to be another opportunity for the people to judge. But I should have thought that here was one epithet and one word which could never be used of my noble Friend, and that was the word "irresponsible." I should have thought that hon. Members who served with him in this House and have watched his

career in Governments and his management of the extremely delicate and difficult task of leading the Conservative Opposition in the House of Lords would never wish to characterise him as irresponsible.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I was using the word "irresponsible" in the direct sense. He is responsible to no one but himself, and not to the electorate.

Mr. Macmillan: I do not think that is sound constitutional law. Both Houses of Parliament are summoned here by the Crown. We are all subjects of the Crown and in the different ways in which we serve—

Mr. J. Jones: Who is being pompous now?

Mr. Macmillan: Does not the hon. Member believe in the Crown? I say we are summoned here to sit by the Crown. We are all servants, subjects and citizens, whether we sit in one House or the other. Each is equally responsible and there should be equal rights. If the record of service of my noble Friend and of his family over a great number of years is compared with that of the right hon. Gentleman who made the observation. I think it would leave my noble Friend unassailed.
Now we come to the great doctrine or mandate to which I must devote a word or two, although we are getting beyond the witching hour—but it is a movable feast. It is contained in this famous phrase which comes under Section IV, paragraph 3 of "Let Us Face the Future":
Public ownership of iron and steel.—Pribate monopoly has maintained high prices and kept inefficient high-cost plants in existence. Only if public ownership replaces private monopoly can the industry become efficient.
That great phrase which weighs so heavily upon the conscience of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough. Day by day he has been suffering all these years wondering whether the Government will stick to this tremendous expression or whether they will run away from it. How terrible for him when it was common knowledge that the Cabinet was running away from it. We had to get rid of the last Minister of Supply because he would not agree to it. That is why he was sacked; everyone


knows that—[Interruption.] Oh, yes, that is common knowledge. The P.R.O.s which are employed so freely by hon. Members opposite sometimes let out the truth.
I do not think this great doctrine could have been swept away more expressively than it was in another place by a man not of my own party but with whom I find myself very often in agreement—a very distinguished statesman with a long record in this House and the other, Lord Samuel. He swept it away in a speech in which he made it clear that it was absurd to suggest, because there was this particular phrase which he described as such a very long way down and coyly hidden at the end of the queue, that this was a sort of moral obligation on this House of Parliament to carry it through. It is an enormous change at this time when so many things have happened during these four years. Surely, that is pressing a sort of political argument to an absolute absurdity.
Is no account to be taken of changing events? The party opposite before 1939 were pledged against conscription. They voted against it as late as 1939 after the Anschluss, after the occupation of Prague, after war become an absolute certainty. When war was declared, they, quite rightly I think as Members of the Coalition Government, did not dissociate themselves because of some mad thing they had once said to the people in 1935 when opposing conscription. Indeed, the people must be very confused about what hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have told them about conscription because the Government are confused themselves; they change from 18 months to a year within a fortnight, so that the people must be almost more confused than they are themselves by their promises and also by their performance.
The truth is that there are all sorts of reasons which led people to cast their votes at the last General Election. Of course, there will be a General Election very soon, although the right hon. Gentleman did not tell us when; he knows almost everything, but he does not know that. Nobody knows when. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite would like to have it in October; they are those who hope to get in. Others want to delay it

till July; they are those who know they will be out. A very ingenious compromise of all these conflicting views was arrived at by the Lord President of the Council, because the date in the Bill for vesting date is May, 1950. That was obviously chosen by the greatest political manager of our time; the greatest in the Old World, certainly. There may be some better in the New World.
Certainly the right hon. Gentleman's colleague the Minister of Health said that there had been better Tammany bosses in the New World, and he called him only third-rate. That was very unfair: he is absolutely first-rate. I will not go into the relative excellence of his performance. He so arranged it that those who wanted the nationalisation of the iron and steel industry in this Parliament, those who wanted to make certain of it, were told "You are all right. You have got your way because it is going to be carred out in this Parliament." On the other hand, those who were a bit uncertain and said "You know, this is rather a big step. It may have bad repercussions. You had better be careful," were told "Oh well, it is not coming into force till May, 1950, and the Election will be in May or June, so you can always comfort your consciences by that." So everybody was pleased.
All we are asking is that the people of this country should be allowed to judge this issue. That is all. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have confidence in their judgment I cannot see why they cannot accept these Amendments. I am certain that if they refuse these Amendments the country will draw the only possible conclusion: that the Government have not confidence in themselves, that they wish to use the Parliamentary method and have not even shrunk from changing the constitution, as it was settled in the great dispute between the two Houses over 30 years ago, and that even at this most serious time in our history they are determined to press this matter through. The only judgment the people will form is that the Government are determined that the people shall not have the opportunity to judge.

Mr. J. Jones: I am sure the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) will not expect me at this hour to follow him through all the various phases of his


speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Well, he referred to Molotov, and if I were to relate what Molotov had said, particularly about the Tory Party, I should have to speak for much longer than I intend. He made some play with the result of the next General Election, and then told us what Disraeli had said. I am no historian, but I well remember that on one occasion Disraeli said that the Tory Party was organised hypocrisy. I do not blame him. The right hon. Gentleman went on to talk about Tammany bosses, although what Tammany bosses have to do with this Iron and Steel Bill I do not know. The whole speech of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be based on whether he or someone else shall decide who is to be in this House as a result of the next General Election.
11.45 a.m.
As good Socialists and Democrats we are willing to leave the result of the next Election as we left the result of the last Election, to the people, and to abide by their decision. One decision has been made clear: if the Tories are returned they will throw out this Bill. That is exactly what we would expect them to do, because of their vested interests and the privileges they have enjoyed for the last 60 or 70 years. We would expect them to retain them in their own interests. The will of the people will decide.
We have now had a Debate extending exactly 20¼ hours. If the Leader of the House were here—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—he would probably use his well chosen phrase: "A good time has been had by all." I would like seriously to express our gratitude to the Opposition for the way in which this Debate has been conducted. There has been good humour, and many valid points have been made. There has been, as the steel trade would say, an occasional ebullition of the metal. I could put that into steel-smelter's language, but I doubt whether the Chair would regard it as entirely in Order.
The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) has talked about prices and efficiency. I make no complaint. If I had the time I could give to the House the historical development of the wages structure in the industry and prove that, by their 1905 agreement, those to whom I shall never refrain from referring to

as fine men would now be earning £9 or £10 per week more than they are now getting, which is the measure of the sacrifice they are making. Not so long ago, the industry were asked, through the Opposition, to present their plan, and they put in a plan for £168 million worth of capital equipment, which, at present prices, would be more like £250 million.
Great play has been made with the Idea that the Government have no plan. The Opposition seek to compel my right hon. Friend to put into the Bill the technical details of a plan. That has never been, and never should be, done. Technical details and plans are never contained in Bills. Statements were made by the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Mr. P. Roberts), whose opinions I value, and who, I know, is respected by many steel workers in and around Sheffield, where he is privileged to serve some of those fine men, although only a few of our people.
The hon. Gentleman made reference to the General Secretary of the British Iron and Steel Trades Confederation. I am getting rather tired of references to personal opinions. References should be made in this House to the accredited, democratically arranged—[An HON. MEMBER: "Democratically what?"]—arrived at opinion of the whole of that industry. It was put forward in no unmistakable terms on the day I made my Second Reading speech from this Box—a recognition of their demand for nationalisation since 1932. I would prefer the Opposition to refer always, not to the personal opinions of individuals, but to the accredited opinion of the organisation responsible in the main for production in the iron and steel industry.
I do not want to go into all the details of what was said. I thoroughly enjoyed the speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) who himself gave great service to our country on a nationalised ship inside a nationalised industry, and I pay a tribute to him. As is usual, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) took delight in having a dig at the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. A few weeks ago I was asked to define the hon. Member in a few words, and I said that I always looked upon Fred of Altrincham as being fair of face, fine of form, but always devoid of fact. The hon. Member tried to make a sneering


reference to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary by suggesting that I would make nothing but an ornament on the Steel Board. Well I was an ornament in front of a steel furnace probably before the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale had left his mother's knee.
What we really want to tell the Opposition is that this Government have decided what course this Bill shall take. By that decision this House will stand. Following upon that decision—

Mr. Lyttelton: Say it again.

Mr. Jones: Yes, I will say it again because it is worthy of repetition—by that decision this House will stand—

Mr. Macmillan: And fall.

Mr. Jones: Finally it has been suggested that this will be one of the focal points, one of the most interesting features of the pending General Election whenever that may be. I do not know and, what is more, I personally am not one whit worried. Whenever that election comes

we, as good Socialists, as good democrats, shall gladly abide by the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box.

I want to congratulate my own Minister, my right hon. Friend, who has gone right through this long Debate without loss of temper—though with loss of sleep—with kindness and with efficiency—[HON. MEMBERS: "Steel Board."] I want to tell the Opposition that the stratum of society from which I come always pays credit where credit is due, and I want to pay here and now a public tribute to the way my right hon. Friend has gone through this Debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Steel Board."]—and to say finally that these decisions can safely be left with those people who, after all, are the final arbiters in this case. I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Whiteley: Mr. Whiteley rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 141.

Division No. 238.]
AYES
[11.55 a.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Cluse, W. S.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Cocks, F. S.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.


Albu, A. H.
Coldrick, W.
Gibbins, J.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Cooper, G.
Gibson, C. W.


Alpass, J. H.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Gilzean, A.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Corlett, Dr. J.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)


Attewell, H. C.
Cove, W. G.
Gooch, E. G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Crawley, A.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.


Awbery, S. S.
Cullen, Mrs.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)


Ayles, W. H.
Daggar, G.
Grey, C. F.


Bacon, Miss A.
Daines, P.
Grierson, E.


Balfour, A.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)


Barstow, P. G.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)


Barton, C.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)


Battley, J. R.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden


Bechervaise, A. E.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Guy, W. H.


Benson, G.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hale, Leslie


Beswick, F.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Deer, G.
Hardman, D. R.


Bing, G. H. C.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hardy, E. A.


Binns, J.
Delargy, H. J.
Harrison, J.


Blenkinsop, A.
Diamond, J.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville.


Blyton, W. R.
Dobbie, W.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)


Boardman, H.
Dodds, N. N.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Bottomley, A. G.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Herbison, Miss M.


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Hewitson, Capt M.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl Exch'ge)
Dumpleton, C. W.
Hobson, C. R.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Dye, S.
Holman, P.


Bramall, E. A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Brooks, T. J. (Rathwell)
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Horabin, T. L.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Houghton, Douglas


Brown, George (Belper)
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Hoy, J.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Hubbard, T.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Ewart, R.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)


Burden, T. W.
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Burke, W. A.
Field, Capt. W. J.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)


Callaghan, James
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Carmichael, James
Follick, M.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Forman, J. C.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)


Champion, A. J.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Freeman, J. (Watford)
Johnston, D. H.




Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Noel-Baker, Capt F. E. (Brentford)
Stokes, R. R.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
O'Brien, T.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Oldfield, W. H.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Oliver, G. H.
Stross, Dr. B.


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Orbach, M.
Stubbs, A. E.


Keenan, W.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Swingler, S.


Kenyan, C.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Sylvester, G. O.


King, E. M.
Pargiter, G. A.
Symonds, A. L.


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Parker, J.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Kinley, J.
Parkin, B. T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Kirby, B. V.
Pearson, A.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Perrins, W.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Lang, G.
Piratin, P.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Lavers, S.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Popplewell, E.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Thurtle, Ernest


Let, Miss J. (Cannock)
Price, M. Philips
Titterington, M. F.


Leonard, W.
Proctor, W. T.
Tolley, L.


Levy, B. W.
Pryde, D. J.
Usborne, Henry


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Randall, H. E.
Viant, S. P.


Lindgren, G. S.
Ranger, J.
Walker, G. H.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Reeves, J.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Logan, D. G.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Warbey, W. N.


Longden, F.
Rhodes, H.
Watkins, T. E.


Lyne, A. W.
Richards, R.
Watson, W. M.


McEntee, V. La. T.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Mack, J. D.
Robens, A.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
West, D. G.


McKinlay, A. S.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edin'gh, E.)


Maclean, N. (Govan)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


McLeavy, F.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Wigg, George


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Royle, C.
Wilcock, Group-Capt C. A. B.


Mann, Mrs. J.
Sargood, R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Scollan, T.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Sharp, Granville
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Mellish, R. J.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Shurmer, P.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Mikardo, Ian
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Mitchison, G. R.
Simmons, C. J.
Willis, E.


Monslow, W.
Skeffington, A. M.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Moody, A. S.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


Morley, R.
Skinnard, F. W.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Wise, Major F. J.


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Woods, G. S.


Mort, D. L.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Yates, V. F.


Moyle, A.
Snow, J. W.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Nally, W.
Sorenson, R. W.



Neal, H. (Claycross)
Sparks, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Steele, T.
Mr. Hannan and


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Mr. George Wallace.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Head, Brig. A. H.


Baldwin, A. E.
Donner, P. W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.


Barlow, Sir J.
Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Herbert, Sir A. P.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Drayson, G. B.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Bennett, Sir P.
Drewe, C.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)


Birch, Nigel
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hope, Lord J.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Duthie, W. S.
Howard, Hon. A.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Eccles, D. M.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Erroll, F. J.
Kendall, W. D.


Butcher, H. W.
Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Langford-Holt, J.


Carson, E.
Fox, Sir G.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Challen, C.
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Channon, H.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Linstead, H. N.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Gammans, L. D.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Low, A. R. W.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Glyn, Sir R.
Lucas, Major Sir J.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Granville, E. (Eye)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Gridley, Sir A.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.


Davidson, Viscountess
Grimston, R. V.
McCallum, Maj. D.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Harden, J. R. E.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)


De la Bère, R.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
McFarlane, C. S.







McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Sutcliffe, H.


Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Pickthorn, K.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Raikes, H. V.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Ramsay, Maj. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Touche, G. C.


Maude, J. C.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)
Turton, R. H.


Mellor, Sir J.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Ropner, Col. L.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Mullan, Lt. C. H.
Savory, Prof. D. L.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Scott, Lord W.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Nicholson, G.
Smithers, Sir W.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Nield, B. (Chester)
Spearman, A. C. M.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Spence, H. R.



Nutting, Anthony
Strauss Henry (English Universities)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Obey, G. W.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Mr. Studholme and




Brigadier Mackeson.

Question put accordingly, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 285; Noes, 137.

Division No. 239.]
AYES
[12.5 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Hobson, C. R.


Albu, A. H.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Holman, P.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Alpass, J. H.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Horabin, T. L.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Houghton, Douglas


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Deer, G.
Hoy, J.


Attewell, H. C.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hubbard, T.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Delargy, H. J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)


Awbery, S. S.
Diamond, J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Ayles, W. H.
Dobbie, W.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'ton, W.)


Bacon, Miss A.
Dodds, N. N.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Balfour, A.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Barstow, P. G.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)


Barton, C.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Battley, J. R.
Dye, S.
Johnston, Douglas


Bechervaise, A. E.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)


Beswick, F.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)


Bing, G. H. C.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)


Binns, J.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Blenkinsop, A.
Ewart, R.
Keenan, W.


Blyton, W. R.
Fernyhough, E.
Kenyon, C.


Boardman, H.
Field, Capt. W. J.
King, E. M.


Bottomley, A. G.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.


Bowden, Flg. Offr H. W.
Follick, M.
Kinley, J.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Forman, J. C.
Kirby, B. V.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.


Bramall, E. A.
Freeman, J. (Watford)
Lang, G.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Lavers, S.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.


Brown, George (Belper)
Gibbins, J.
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Gibson, C. W.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Gilzean, A.
Leonard, W.


Burden, T. W.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Levy, B. W.


Burke, W. A.
Gooch, E. G.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Callaghan, James
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Carmichael, James
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Lindgren, G. S.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Grey, C. F.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Champion, A. J.
Grierson, E.
Logan, D. G.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Longden, F.


Cluse, W. S.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Lyne, A. W.


Cocks, F. S.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
McAllister, G.


Coldrick, W.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
McEntee, V. La. T.


Cook, T. F.
Guy, W. H.
Mack, J. D.


Cooper, G.
Hale, Leslie
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
McKinlay, A. S.


Corlett Dr. J.
Hardman, D. R.
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Cove, W. G.
Hardy, E. A.
McLeavy, F.


Crawley, A.
Harrison, J.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Cullen, Mrs.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Daggar, G.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Mann, Mrs. J.


Daines, P.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Herbison, Miss M.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)




Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Rhodes, H.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Mellish, R. J.
Richards, R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Mikardo, Ian.
Robens, A.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Thurtle, Ernest


Mitchison, G. R.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Titterington, M. F.


Monslow, W.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Tolley, L.


Moody, A. S.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Usborne, Henry


Morley, R.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Royle, C.
Viant, S. P.


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Sargood, R.
Walker, G. H.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E)
Scollan, T.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Mort, D. L.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Warbey, W. N.


Moyle, A.
Sharp, Granville
Watkins, T. E.


Nally, W.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Watson, W. M.


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Shurmer, P.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
West, D. G.


Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Simmons, C. J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


O'Brien, T.
Skeffington, A. M.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Oldfield, W. H.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Whiteley, Rt. Han. W.


Oliver, G. H.
Skinnard, F. W.
Wigg, George


Orbach, M.
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Wilkins, W. A.


Palmer, A. M. F.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Pargiter, G. A.
Smith, S. H. (Hull. S. W.)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Parker, J.
Snow, J. W.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Parkin, B. T.
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Pearson, A.
Sparks, J. A.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Perrins, W.
Steele, T.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Piratin, P.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Stokes, R. R.
Willis, E.


Popplewell, E.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


Price, M. Philips
Stross, Dr. B.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Proctor, W. T.
Stubbs, A. E.
Wise, Major F. J.


Pryde, D. J.
Swingler, S.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Pursey, Comdr. H.
Sylvester, G. O.
Woods, G. S.


Randall, H. E.
Symonds, A. L.
Yates, V. F.


Ranger, J.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Reeves, J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)



Reid, T. (Swindon)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Hannan and Mr. George Wallace.




NOES


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.


Baldwin, A. E.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)


Barlow, Sir J.
Gammans, L. D.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)


Bennett, Sir P.
Glyn, Sir R.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Granville, E. (Eye)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Cot. W.
Gridley, Sir A.
Maude, J. C.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Grimston, R. V.
Mellor, Sir J.


Butcher, H. W.
Harden, J. R. E.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.


Carson, E.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)


Challen, C.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Channon, H.
Head, Brig A. H.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Mullan, Lt. C. H.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Herbert, Sir A. P.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nicholson, G.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Nield, B. (Chester)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hope, Lord J.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Howard, Hon. A.
Nutting, Anthony


Cuthbert, W. N.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Odey, G. W.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Davidson, Viscountess
Kendall, W. D.
Pickthorn, K.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Langford-Holt, J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


De la Bère, R.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Raikes, H. V.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Donner, P. W.
Linstead, H. N.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Drewe, C.
Low, A. R. W.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Duthie, W. S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Eccles, D. M.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Ropner, Col. L.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walte
McCallum, Maj. D.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Erroll, F. J.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I of Wight)
Scott, Lord W.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
McFarlane, C. S.
Smithers, Sir W.


Fox, Sir G.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Spence, H. R.







Strauss, Henry (English Universities)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Studholme, H. G.
Touche, G. C.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Sutcliffe, H.
Turton, R. H.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Ward, Hon. G. R.



Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)
Commander Agnew and


Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Williams, C. (Torquay)
Colonel Wheatley.


Question put, and agreed to.

12.15 p.m.

Lords Amendments disagreed to: In page 10, line 22, leave out "fifty" and insert "fifty-one."

In page 10, line 23, leave out "passing" and insert "coming into force."

In page 11, line 11, leave out "May" and insert "July."

In page 11, line 12, leave out "fifty and insert "fifty-one."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That further consideration of the Lords Amendments be adjourned."—[Mr. Joseph Henderson.]

Mr. H. Macmillan: Since this proposal was made from this side of the House some eight hours ago, I welcome the fact that the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House has now thought fit to grant us what was then refused. I welcome the fact that the Leader of the House, no doubt judging from his experience of this Debate, has allowed us to have the Adjournment which was then refused. We thought all the time that it was not reasonable to ask the House to deal with these immense subjects in a single Sitting, and we have been proved to be right. The House should have been given two Sittings for this work. Therefore, we shall certainly not oppose the Motion. We hope that all the Motions which we move will afterwards be accepted by the Government, and as this is a good omen that they will accept our other Motions, I shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to agree, and not to

stand in the way of the House now refreshing itself.

Major Beamish: I hope the fact that we are not opposing this Motion will not be taken as proof that any of us on this side are in the least bit satisfied with the way in which the Debate has been conducted. I want to protest in the strongest possible terms against the way in which the Guillotine has been used. I see that the Leader of the House is in his place—

Mr. Speaker: The only question which is now in Order, of course, is whether or not we shall adjourn the discussion on the Lords Amendments. One cannot go back and discuss what happened in the House previously.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Would it not be in Order, Mr. Speaker, to say that one's vote on this question depends on the way the Government propose to make use of the Closure?

Mr. Speaker: Oh, no; that has nothing to do with the Motion before the House.

Lords Amendments to be further considered this day.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Joseph Henderson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen Minutes past Twelve o'Clock p.m. upon Tuesday, 26th July, 1949.